Kudos to New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.
Over the summer. we remarked at how awkward it was to watch – in the era of YouTube – the candidates for president have to pander their way through the National Education Association’s Representative Assembly in Philadelphia by offering lines from the union’s talking points in exchange for cheap applause.
Awkward, for sure, but something you get used to seeing if you follow education politics and the powerful grip the teachers unions have on debate. (One reason Democrats historically look so impotent on education is the perception that the union leaders won’t let them out of their policy cages.)
This is why it was so astonishing to read the Q+A with Spitzer, a Democrat, in the latest issue of New York Teacher, a magazine that is historically an informative and extremely effective propaganda arm for the state’s teachers unions.
When most politicians – from both parties (in fact it is usually even uglier to watch the Republicans have to pander to the teachers) – are on a stage and conducting an interview to be published later with the teachers union president, they can’t help but switch off the brain and simply say what the union leader wants to hear. That’s how it is supposed to work.
But Spitzer, who is under fire from all quarters to play by these sorts of old-school rules, made the curious decision to stick to his guns on two very controversial issues for the union: charter schools and tuition tax credits.
You’re supposed to collapse as a politician when you’re in situations like this. But Spitzer didn’t. This is actually a pretty big deal.
Check out these portions of his Q+A with Richard Ianuzzi, the president of the super-powerful New York State United Teachers:
Iannuzzi: Terrific. Let me take you to two areas where we have differences – but let me start by reminding you of something that you said to me and where I concur: There are thousands of places where we don’t have differences, and we shouldn’t dwell on the few where we do.
Certainly one area of disagreement is charter schools. Our major concern is districts that are saturated with charters that drain the resources of our neediest districts. Are there ways you can see this current charter school law changing that will help address some of our concerns?
Spitzer: Let me begin with support for charter schools because innovation is good. Not every innovative idea works, of course, but the only way to determine that which will work and differentiate it from that which will not, is to try it. So, charter schools provide an opportunity in some cases for good experimentation. The problem of charter schools siphoning off money from the more traditional public schools is one we have thought about, and that is why we have talked about creating systems to ensure that funding for the non-charter public schools does not get dissipated. We have tried to backfill that aid to the extent that we can.
Iannuzzi: Getting back to a focus on innovation would be critical. I think, however, that ideology in too many places has moved the charter school movement far away from innovation.
Spitzer: Right.
Iannuzzi: Let me address the second area, a proposal for a private school tuition tax credit, something that we have had great differences on. Certainly we’ve lobbied against it and will continue to do so. For us it’s a matter of principle. We feel it’s the wrong direction and takes away from the needed focus on public education. But I think it’s important we share our thoughts about it.
Spitzer: Here’s how I view it. Right now about 15 percent of our K-12 students in the state go to non-public schools and they receive about 1 percent of public funding in the form of ancillary support – transportation expenses or testing expenses that are mandated by the state. What I have said is that of course, absolutely, unambiguously, our first obligation is to our public schools. That is a premise of everything we do.
Having said that, to the 15 percent of our students who are in the non-public world, if we can help parents who made a legitimate choice, based upon their needs and circumstances to send their children elsewhere … if we can help them support that and support those schools without not only endangering, but without undercutting what we do in the public sector, that also would be a good thing to do. I do not see a tension there, I do not see this as a zero sum game. What I see this as, rather, is a mechanism to support the broader universe of public and private education.