Welcome to the other side. We need your help. And we need new champions. Learning to tell the difference is an art, though, not a science.

This is the place where – in order to make good calls that benefit reform – you have to distinguish incessantly between what someone says they believe and what they truly will do. We at CER do not spend money on politics, but we do spend our time and energy on educating and activating people to do the right thing. Oh sure, reform is very much in vogue right now, and hundreds of people will crowd a ballroom to hear someone speak. They will applaud and nod approvingly at every word said in defense of students, and in support of a fight to change the status quo for good. Then they will go back to their states and communities and say things like the following, which we’ve heard for 17 years, as if a 45 were scratched so it keeps repeating…

“Of course we have to shut down failing schools. But we have to think carefully about the impact.”

“Oh I support school choice, but we don’t have very bad schools in my district.”

“I support school choice as long as there is a level playing field.”

“Of course I’m a supporter of charter schools. It’s just that having another authorizer is unconstitutional.”

“Our unions are the strongest in the country.”

“We have to focus on the 98% of students in the system not the 2% outside.”

“I support linking teacher performance to student test scores. The devil is in the details.”

Such statements come from people who indeed believe in reform – like most believe in Christmas – but whether they live and breath it and promote and act it is a whole different story.

We’ve learned the hard way that those who say they support school choice – and thus garner the support and accolades of many admiring reformers – either don’t fight hard enough or decide not to expend political capital to make it happen.

There was the senior U.S. Senator who was asked to twist the arm of an allegedly enlightened and new junior U.S. Senator over the DC school choice bill, who told us he doesn’t like to operate that way. Operate that way? Yes, apparently brass tacks and horse-trading with his colleagues was not his way, but both are recognized as champions nonetheless.

There are several states whose so-called reform leaders boast of winning ‘Race to the Top’ monies because of their bold new performance pay systems for teachers and data systems, which it turns out are not very bold, nor consequential. We said that when they were applying and were called sour pusses. Turns out we were right. States with RtTT monies are adopting conventional professional development requirements and imposing those on school districts in exchange for money, calling it performance based and taking a bow. Geez.

We have Governors who embraced strong charter laws but get caught up in the new hype that “not all charters succeed”, so they stop pushing. In reality most do succeed if you ignore the bad, self-aggrandized data from some think tanks. Millions are being served, millions more could be, and when we have strong, non-school board authorizers, charters excel. But those are technical issues some find difficult to talk about in public. It’s easier to grab a major newspaper headline and not ask about the truth. If you are a charter supporter today and stand from the rooftops and call for closing bad schools you feel objective, less controversial. It also means you’re a fool. Charters that don’t work are highly clustered in states with bad data systems and bad authorizers. Thankfully, that’s not the majority. Why would you stand up to sell and issue that works for most kids but preface with a comment that it’s not the answer? Unbelievable.

We have more public support for choice and accountability than ever before, but we learn yet again today that even our most advanced students are barely below average in math and science, while our most needy students are failing miserably, still.

Michelle, you are right. We have to fight. We cannot, however, succeed if we fight along side our friends who think conflict is bad, and who praise the baby steps, feigning ignorance about what really works.

At CER, we’ve criticized Rs and we’ve criticized Ds. We’ve criticized people who others praise as reformers for boasting a model that still barely scratches the surface. We seek the whole loaf, but we’ll settle for half only after we’ve given it our all. Most, sadly, start with negotiation and end up, well, with little.

You knew better when you ran the system in the District than to start from a point of weakness. Similarly, in your new endeavor, there are three major things you must remember:

1) THE ARMY IS SMALLER THAN IT MAY APPEAR. Yes, reform has made progress, but we’ve not grown an army. Not all people who espouse reform, show up at a conference, speak at a trusted group’s meeting or even boast of their pedigree are indeed reformers. While we can use their support and encouragement, their cheerleading and tweeting, recognize that there are few battle ready activists who will have serious impact on outcomes, without additional firepower, which leads to…

2) POLITICIANS OFTEN MISS OR FAKE REFORM. Ask anyone who’s been a legislator and learned hard way – his colleagues talk a great game but either don’t get it or don’t buy it. The reform movement also seems to have a very low bar for endorsing people. “Oh he’s a great guy,” we’ll say of a person who quotes you or Joel Klein or says they like Governor Christie. To make meaningful political contributions to candidates requires a detailed litmus test that goes beyond generalities about data systems, accountability, performance pay, unions and the like. “Would you support or oppose…” doesn’t cut it. You will need to assess the positions of politicos looking for your support. Will they seriously learn the distinction between a bill that requires strings and one that does not? What would they do if faced with a bill that permits only kids in failing schools to attend a charter, which can only be approved if the school board controls in and manages the contracts (and thus resulting in only a fraction of the kids who need good schools getting them). Would you think this is a worthwhile endeavor (half a loaf) or would you insist on bigger, better, stronger as a condition of your support?

3) BEWARE OF FALSE FRIENDS. Someone I respect said the leader of a major education establishment organization was “enlightened” for talking a lot about accountability. Clever union leaders have adopted the language of reform. Some think tanks and advocacy groups have a seat at the table even when they still believe that there is no solution for educating kids until we fix the family. [Note: Under the "watch-what-you-say-you-never-know-who's-listening-heading" I sat in front of two very prominent people at EducationNation this fall who childishly made fun of major reformers who talked about choice or accountability on a panel, yet on these individuals is heaped praise for showing up at our tables.] These groups and individuals have adopted our language, but not our cause. Some just want to feel like we are all getting along. We are not. This kind of thinking dilutes otherwise great effort and it influences a generation of people to think we’ve got more friends than we actually have, so they can just stay home and let others do the work.

If you hold yourself accountable to these three simple tenets at a minimum, you may not find a lot of friends but you’ll be consistent, impactful and make progress, even if people would prefer not to admit it.

Good luck!

Jeanne

Alter’s column this week puts some heft behind the selection of Denver, CO superintendent Michael Bennet to be Ed Secretary. Could we really have another Bennett in that office? We could have a lot of fun with comparisons, but for now, we’re struck by the uncritical gaze that the otherwise keen Alter has given to both Bennet – and his interviewee of the week – Bill Gates.

Both in Alter’s estimation are reformers. He says Gates told him he believes in merit pay – and yet I’m not fully aware of any policy groups that strongly push for performance based pay changes in law which Gates is throwing money behind. The Gates Foundation is financially and morally supportive of the work of Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein and clearly Michael Bennet. But what superintendents can do is limited unless their state legislatures make it easier for them to free teachers from contract rules that limit pay and operational structures. Put in layman’s terms, it is state law that often dictates what supers do – state laws that teachers’ unions fiercely lobby for and against. We’re all for in-system reform – but one shouldn’t expect every super to be as heroic – or crazy – as reformers like Rhee, et al to make change. There simply aren’t enough of them out there.

Bennet’s much praised ProComp pay effort is a baby step in the big scheme of educational success for all kids. He’s made progress, some believe, by not confronting but rather by soliciting the union’s help and thus its approval of such a plan. But such efforts depend on people, and as the challenges in Washington with its teachers’ union makes clear, it takes just one change in leadership to blow up all the progress (WTU president had all but shaken hands with Chancellor Rhee when his VP launched a recall petition and called the national AFT on him who quickly moved in with their intimidation tactics).

Bill Gates should know – and people like Alter should report – that to make real change laws must change. The KIPPs and Green Dots that he visits when he’s looking for a pick-me-up came about because some of us fought to create strong charter laws that would enable such great networks – and some lesser known independent, non-network charters – to thrive. As laws get rolled back or sustain caps that make such quality charter options limited to only a fraction of all public school kids, such networks will remain a choice for the few.

“To those who much has been given, much is expected.” Gates’ philanthropy is extraordinary but it almost seems to overlook that laws matter. If Bill Gates can get our President-elect on the phone, he should be able to similarly use his clout to make permanent changes in law that allow more great programs to flourish. Our supply of human capital reformers is simply not big enough for even his money to sustain forever.

Oh, and Jonathan, the next time you talk to Gates or others like him, ask how much money they are spending to back legislative efforts to ensure all of the above. Thanks.

While there’s nothing glamorous about firing nearly 300 teachers and principals, Rhee has made more changes within DCPS in one year than most could even dream about over several decades. She’s not your typical cover girl, as TIME points out. She’s been called a “nightmare” but Chancellor Rhee seems okay with that. “Have I rubbed people the wrong way? Definitely. If I changed my style, I might make people a little more comfortable… but I think there’s real danger in acting in a way that makes adults feel better.”

A piece in today’s Washington Post shows that this new style can work, but with folks like AFT boss Randi Weingarten highly critical of this new trend, it is unlikely to catch on without bold leadership from our elected officials.

It reminds us that you can have anything you want in America – unless you’re poor, that is.

Nowhere is this more clear than when it comes to schooling your child. Much has been written about where the Obamas might send their babies to school. As they are looking at private schools, their new hometown paper, The Washington Post, is reminding them that there are other people who want such a choice, but the President-elect doesn’t support the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program that allows such a choice with taxpayer dollars.

There are others who want him to go to a charter school. One of his biggest fans, Democrats for Education Reform, a group which really believes he will carry their agenda, is pleading for him to choose a charter school in D.C., one of the 62 or so high quality schools currently serving almost 30 percent of the D.C. public school population.

While my organization is the nation’s leading advocate for charter school choices, I’m not so sure I want to see the Obamas choose a charter school. Though I disagree with our president-elect on many issues and fear that obsessive government solutions and spending will push us further into a government dependency, I want the best for him and his family when they come to Washington. I want him to have no distractions other than those that impact us all.

And frankly, if Sasha and Malia were to attend a charter school, here are just a few of the problems they’d encounter that are documented from schools here and throughout the country:

• Every month or so they’d learn that a city council member or their own member of Congress was pushing legislation to curb the freedom of the school to provide the kind of quality programs that such freedom encourages. They’d worry that such a move might hurt their school, and they’d have to wonder whether their choice was safe.

• They’d read in the newspaper about some study from some ivory tower institution, claiming that charters do well because they cream the best students. Even though Malia and Sasha would be sitting next to the most diverse student body they’d probably ever have encountered, from an income and possibly a color perspective, the Obamas would be told that their daughters are only doing well because the school creams.

• The head of the teachers union nationally, a friend otherwise to the Obamas, might say at a national convention (as she has numerous times) that charters don’t play by the same rules as other public schools, that they are mostly likely to reject special ed kids, when in fact most special ed children sitting along side Malia or Sasha may have hidden their disability at a traditional public school because their parents feared the dreaded IEP process of the school administration.

• The girls might be in a building that is less than stellar. The cafeteria probably doubles for the gym and the school meeting space where the choirs sing at Christmas or holidays. Unless the charter has a big fat grant from the Gates Foundation, there’s probably no nurse’s station because the public pays for only traditional public school facilities and not charter public facilities in most places.

• If the Obamas lived in Delaware they might wake up one day to learn of a moratorium on charters, making it possible that the legislature will further roll back the law. In South Carolina, they’d know that after two years, the state and school boards still refuse to give each charter more than 65 percent of what other schools receive. This would compromise just about every program they deliver.

• Mrs. Obama, as first lady of a child at a charter, you might also find the most dedicated, involved and passionate parents you’ll ever meet. Despite most being lower income and not having been involved at a school ever before, you’ll be overjoyed to learn that parents who choose are parents with power and they use it wisely. However, they often have to go to The Hill or show up at rallies at the city council to prove that they matter. That’s because there are city council members who really don’t believe that we should “do” public education in any other way than the one system that was created by Horace Mann back in the 1800s.

For these reasons, and more we could go into at great length, I’d prefer you find a place like Sidwell Friends or Georgetown Day (even though teachers are addressed by their first name there – you won’t find that kind of lower expectation of kids at a charter school) because for some strange reason, no one criticizes those schools. They are strong and deserve your patronage. There are lots of good private schools in the area of course. The Catholic schools offer a quality education for almost a quarter of what you’d pay at Georgetown Day. There are schools like the nonsectarian Nannie Helen Burroughs School, which has educated African-American children in their community for more than 20 years and is almost on a par with a Georgetown Day, minus the sports and international activities, APs, etc. They do it with whatever funds they can find. Thankfully the Opportunity Scholarship Program helps their children get the education they deserve.

I for one know that the Obamas will come to believe that. Meanwhile, I found the most difficult and important choices I’ve made are the schools to which I’ve sent my four children. Unfortunately, Maryland came to charter schools too late for me and in my county the only proposal ever sought was denied on arrival by a school board that just couldn’t figure out why parents might need a choice. I’m one of the estimated 25 percent in Montgomery County, MD that sends my children to private schools, so clearly there’s a demand.

But back to the President-elect and his family. Charter schools are working for about 1.5 million children, and in the District they are the key to why Chancellor Rhee can do what she is doing. They have opened up minds and hearts to a better way for children. The few that haven’t worked have, like any failing school should be, closed. But despite working 20 hours a day, on less funding and still meeting the needs of the vast majority of their kids, these schools have to fight every day for the right to exist and must put up with political shenanigans that have more to do with adult jobs than children’s welfare.

So stay out of that one, Mr. President-elect. We don’t need you to have more worries than the ones you’ll already have upon arrival.