Finding fault with Governor Deval Patrick in recent days has been significantly easier than shooting fish in a barrel. But in characterizing the recent Patrick "e-mailgate" scandal, teachers' unions have hijacked the message, and the people of every city and town in Massachusetts should take note.
Earlier this year, Gloucester, Worcester and Waltham were each seeking state approval for their proposed charter schools. Months after the Gloucester Community Arts Charter was approved, an e-mail from Education Secretary Paul Reville to Mitchell Chester, commissioner of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, dated eight days prior to the vote, surfaced. In it Reville stated, "(o)ur reality is that we have to show some sympathy in this group of charters or we'll get permanently labeled as hostile and they will cripple us with a number of key moderate allies like the Globe and the Boston Foundation." He went on to say, "(m)y inclination is to think that you, I and the Governor all need to send at least one positive signal in this batch, and I gather that you think the best candidate is Gloucester."
When the e-mail went public, charter school opponents, including the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA), used it as a launching pad for feigned shock and indignation about politics entering the realm of education.
"Apparent politicization," the MTA called it in a letter posted to its Web site; "a politically orchestrated charade," said Gloucester schools Superintendent Christopher Farmer.
The notion that politics might enter any decision-making process regarding funding of anything, is surprising to nobody. But in this instance it offered a convenient distraction on which charter school opponents could hang their hats.
In the blink of an eye, the merits of charter-school proposals were overshadowed by a manufactured controversy that could not have been better for teachers' unions if they'd cooked it up themselves.
Politicization is the middle name of the MTA. Not only does this group wield serious clout in any school-related matter in the commonwealth, its very existence is for purposes of politicization. The MTA stages protests and strikes; it cuts checks to carefully-vetted Democrats; it funds expensive television commercials on behalf of its favored candidates; and it endorses politicians who loyally support its agenda. Put simply: If the MTA weren't political, and were genuinely focused on solid education policy and our children's future, it would convert itself to a think tank, refrain from all political activity, and publish objective research. And hell would freeze over.
People who support accountability and innovative thinking have for years been behind the growing success of charter schools. Free from the stranglehold of unions, these schools have enjoyed success across the country, most notably in areas with previously under-performing public schools. Even Barack Obama has come out in strong favor of charter schools, remarking how they can provide an answer to weaknesses in school systems.
Now, because the obvious has become apparent in Secretary Reville's e-mail, the notion of creating new charter schools has become entangled in a contrived web of controversy having no connection with substantive issues.
An improved education system with more charter schools and fewer under-performing schools could have been one of Governor Patrick's few positive legacies. Every school in Massachusetts not beholden to teachers' unions is one more step in the direction of improved education. But nothing fires up unions more than the thought of a future in which merit matters, bad teachers are fired and union clout diminishes.
Earlier this year, even formerly in-the-union-pocket Boston Mayor Tom Menino started talking about charter schools as one way to address poor performance of certain public schools. He was treated to an accusation of betrayal from the Boston Teachers' Union (BTU). It is of little concern to such unions that in Massachusetts alone, 30 schools are performing so poorly that a state takeover is on the table.
Corruption and arm-twisting should never be tolerated in politics, and aiming for a more transparent and open process for certain operations within government is commendable. Some degree of horse-trading, however, will always exist, and arguably should exist. Realists call it "reaching across the aisle"; opportunists call it "politicization."
It's often said that "you never want to see sausage or legislation being made." The Bill of Rights involved negotiation and trade-offs; as did welfare reform, the Civil Rights Act and any other historic piece of legislation in this country.
Charter schools are no panacea, but they simply offer too much promise to be tossed aside when the MTA, the BTU or any other group with a major dog in the fight make self-righteous proclamations. Innovation, achievement and accountability are the enemy of teachers' unions. Shouldn't this speak for itself?
¢¢¢
Lena Robinson is a writer and public-relations professional who lives in Marblehead.
