Radical (21 page)

On the finance and governance side, we recommended that states move toward leaner and more efficient ways of running schools. That meant that we supported mayoral control of city schools. And if school districts were failing to provide a quality education, we were in favor of the state taking over the schools.

Parents often struggle to get information about not only their individual schools and teachers but also system-wide budgets. Our recommendation: “A school district's budget should give an average member of the public a clear sense of where the money goes and what the district's priorities are.”

Why not?

And why not make sure that central offices serve the direct interests of students? I found in D.C. and school districts nationwide that school bureaucracies existed in part to perpetuate themselves rather than to promote learning in the classroom. Our recommendation: “Bloated central offices should be pared down to eliminate redundancies in a way that connects every member of the central team with a goal of driving student outcomes.”

W
E CIRCULATED OUR POLICY
agenda to a number of trusted veteran education reform leaders. It received mixed reviews.

Many colleagues argued that our goals were not broad enough. If we wanted to put students first, why not address curricula? What about nutrition? Why not recommend that states offer a variety of social services within the public schools?

I could see why reformers would suggest that we cover all aspects of public education. But I wanted to stay on the ground, focused very tightly on teaching and teacher quality, all directed to improving student outcomes. Curricula and nutrition are certainly important, but neither would be our focus nor our strength.

At the same time, we heard from political leaders in many states who wanted to translate and transplant everything we did in D.C. to their systems. They welcomed us into their states. We wanted to create an aggressive approach to making these reforms happen.

We completed our policy statement by Christmas, just in time to work with state legislatures that began meeting in January. On January 2, 2011, we fanned out and started hitting state capitals.

E
ARLY IN
J
ANUARY
I flew to Tallahassee, Florida, to meet with newly elected governor Rick Scott and state legislators in the first days of the legislative session.

Florida was friendly territory for our reforms. Former governor Jeb Bush had paved the way. He started overhauling the state's public education system as soon as he took office in 1999. He passed laws to grade each school. He pushed through laws to increase student testing and demand accountability. He ended social promotion, where schools allow students to move up a grade with their peers, even if they have not mastered the material required for promotion. He favored vouchers. And as a result, the state was leading the way in improvements nationwide.

Governor Scott was eager to bring D.C.'s reforms to his state. Republicans had a two-thirds majority in the Florida House and Senate, so support for his agenda was there. I had high hopes.

Before I arrived in Tallahassee, legislators were invited to see a screening of
Waiting for “Superman
.
”
By the time I showed up to speak at a luncheon for all, they were beyond excited to see me and hear what I had to say.

In a short speech, I waved a copy of our policy agenda in the air and said, “If you want to do what we did in D.C., pass this agenda.” It's safe to say that legislators and their aides mobbed me after lunch.

That afternoon Governor Scott took me on a tour of schools, starting with one that was under renovation. He stopped to chat with every construction worker on the site. More than one thanked him for keeping his focus on school reform.

Scott and I had met at the Republican Governors Association meeting in November 2010. My sense was that Scott didn't care whether he was well liked or would be reelected. He wanted to do what he believed was right, especially in focusing Florida schools on students. Frankly, he reminded me of Adrian Fenty.

We had the support of Scott and many legislators, but passing our agenda was far from assured. The legislature had passed Senate Bill 6 the year before. It was a vibrant reform package that embraced many of our goals, including merit pay and a curtailing of tenure. Then-governor Charlie Crist vetoed the bill in exchange for support from the teachers unions for his run for the U.S. Senate. Crist lost, but legislators remembered the union's clout. Teachers called in sick. The union rallied outside the Florida Capitol and vilified pro-reform legislators.

So I was not surprised when many Florida House and Senate members were on the fence in the days and weeks after Governor Scott introduced his reform package. The union was working them hard.

What to do?

Even by January 2011, little more than a month after we had launched StudentsFirst, we already had thousands of members in Florida. Many were teachers. When committees held hearings on the education bill, we brought in teachers to testify in favor of the reforms. There were more teachers from StudentsFirst than from the unions. Our members testified in simple terms: the reform package was good for teachers, good for kids, good for schools.

We took the wind out of the unions' sails.

Governor Scott and the state legislature passed virtually every piece of the educator quality strand of our policy agenda. It was a big win for StudentsFirst, the students of Florida—and the teachers. I figured it would take ten years to accomplish that level of reform in California.

A
MONG THE MANY CALLS
and invitations we fielded in our first few months, some of the most persistent came from Michigan.

“You have to go to Lansing,” Kathleen deLaski told me. She had been working in education reform for decades and knew the national landscape. We had met in D.C. when she was working as senior program director on education for the Walton Foundation. I trusted Kathleen.

But I was not eager. Michigan had a reputation for being one of the worst states for education reform. Teach For America had pulled out of Detroit. When I was running The New Teacher Project, I had met with Detroit school officials. I came away so discouraged that I declined to get involved.

“Things have changed,” deLaski said. “The governor and legislators want you to come in.”

Governor Rick Snyder had taken office and promised education reform.

I relented and flew to Lansing.

State representative Paul Scott greeted me there. Scott was a young legislator from the suburbs of Flint. He was appointed chair of the House Education Committee, with the goal of moving quickly to adopt the basic elements of our policy agenda. He set up meetings with the Speaker of the House, the chair of the Senate Education Committee, and Governor Snyder's political director.

I wanted to make sure these Michigan leaders understood the stakes and the obstacles. Were they ready for the battle?

“This is our first year, and we have only limited resources to work with in our partner states this year,” I explained. “When we commit, we go all in and support you across the board.

“But I know what you are up against in Michigan,” I said. “As soon as you introduce the reforms we're talking about, the unions will strike back. They will call you evil, say you hate kids and are against teachers.”

They looked at one another and nodded.

“What we do is give you air cover,” I said. “We will go on the offensive in the media. Instead of waiting for you to get attacked, we'll talk about the importance of the reforms and your courage in leading the way if you choose to take on the fight.”

The legislators huddled for a few minutes. I took a break and returned.

“We have a real opportunity to do something meaningful here,” Paul Scott said.

They said they were committed to passing our policy agenda, but something was missing. I didn't want to launch our state legislative agendas with the support of Republicans alone. I approached Tim Melton, a veteran Democrat serving in the Michigan House. He had chaired the House Education Committee and helped establish Democrats for Education Reform in Michigan. Would Melton help bring Democrats to the table?

“We are on the same page on most of our issues,” I said at our first meeting. “You can support merit pay and closing failing schools. You favor teacher evaluations based on student data. You want to remove caps on successful charter schools. We should work together on this.”

Melton agreed to get as many Democrats as possible to support the reform agenda.

Still, many Michigan legislators started to wilt under the unions' pressure. We found ourselves losing votes. We mobilized our members. Some wrote emails to their representatives. Some showed up at their doors. Many called.

It was effective. So much so that one House member called StudentsFirst and said, “Please stop the emails. I get it already! I am going to vote for the reform.”

With pressure from our members and the help of Tim Melton, Michigan passed a slate of strong reform laws on bipartisan votes.

The teachers unions were not pleased. The Michigan Education Association and its allies sought retribution. Their target was Paul Scott. They gathered enough signatures for a recall. StudentsFirst joined the fight on Scott's side. At the start of the campaign, our polls showed Scott was down by 20 points. With an aggressive campaign in support of Scott, we helped narrow the polls to almost even. In the end, Paul Scott lost, but by fewer than 250 votes.

We passed all of our laws, but we lost Paul Scott. I mourned the defeat of one our staunchest supporters. But the education reformers in the Michigan legislature were undeterred. They were angry at Scott's demise, and our defense of their colleague built trust between StudentsFirst and many legislators.

W
E WANTED TO ENSURE
that we passed laws with bipartisan support. If we were affiliated with a specific party, it would compromise our ability to appeal to our broad base of members. We wanted the membership of StudentsFirst to reflect the diverse America we hoped to serve. People were flocking to StudentsFirst. Membership rose steadily, from one hundred thousand when we launched with Oprah to nearly a million by the end of our first year. But who were they? Did they comprise a diverse group?

“How do we go about building a broad-based organization?” KMJ always asked. “If we don't have Democrats, Latinos, and African Americans represented, we're going to fail, just as we did in D.C.”

I agreed.

It made intrinsic sense. As a Democrat, I believe that access to a high-quality education is not only essential for the health of our democracy and economy, but a civil right fundamental to fulfilling the American creed. I believe civil rights delayed are civil rights denied. And the right to a high-quality education was being denied to too many of our children—especially those of color and in low-income communities.

“I am one of the kids you're trying to help, just forty-six years older,” KMJ said. “I came up here in Sacramento with lousy schools defined by my zip code. That was my reality.”

“What do you propose?” I asked.

“We have to reach out to Latino and African American communities.
We
must be driving the reforms for our own kids,” he said. “Let me take that on.”

KMJ knew the terrain. Remember that he and I had met because he created St. HOPE Public Schools to give poor kids in Sacramento a better choice for public schools. So he knew about the challenges to improving schools in poor neighborhoods. In 2009, he had launched STAND UP, an organization to support high-quality schools in Sacramento.

KMJ introduced our StudentsFirst policy agenda to the Urban League and NAACP in California. He brought it before the National Conference of Black Mayors and convinced the group to adopt our policies. At the U.S. Conference of Mayors, he chaired the education task force and aligned the conference with our agenda as part of its goals. The feedback was incredibly encouraging. These groups were clear with us that they had always wanted to make a difference on these issues, but hadn't always been engaged by the reform community before. We were reaching out to them in the hopes of building the movement together.

At the same time, more high-profile Democrats joined our small band. Tali Stein, a veteran Democratic fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton, among others, came on to help us raise money. Hari Sevugan, a former teacher and then the spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, came on to take over our communications shop. Like me, our staff had always been predominantly young Democrats, but we were adding more credibility to our bipartisan nature with these new hires.

Critics have tried to paint us into a corner populated by only white Republicans. If they check our supporters and our membership, they would be surprised to find teachers, police officers, lawyers, doctors, carpenters, stay-at-home moms, and farmers—in all colors, races, and income levels.

The only absolute that our members have in common is a willingness to act on behalf of students.

I
N THE SPRING OF
2011, soon after I left DCPS,
USA Today
published an investigative story on standardized testing procedures in the District of Columbia. It revealed an unusual number of erasure marks on the local standardized tests of our students between 2008 and 2010. It caused quite a ruckus because it implied that the gains that our students had demonstrated weren't real.

I reacted as someone who had seen firsthand how much hard work the teachers, parents, and students of D.C. had put in over the past three years. I knew how much real change we had accomplished. I was resentful that anyone would question the ability of kids raised in challenging circumstances to succeed.

Our impulse was to attack the messenger. “How dare they question the success of our students?” “There will always be cynics that can't see—or maybe don't want to see—our kids succeed with the right support.”