Reformers and Defenders

With the recent school board election the balance on the board has shifted from five to four in favor of one group to five to four in favor of the other. But what should each of these groups be called? Despite the many years of this divide, even the members of these groups have trouble agreeing on labels. In its report on the election results the Journal Sentinel reverted to the practice of identifying each group with an organization that supported it: “candidates backed by the teacher’s union and those backed by the school choice community.”

But both these designations are problematic as well as cumbersome. Teacher union backing only helps explain behavior on the minority of issues of concern to the union; on most issues the union is indifferent. The use of school choice as the defining issue is even more problematic since the school board has no say in the school choice program and the school choice community sat out the last election.

In an effort to come up with better terms, I took a look at how the supporters of the two groups described their favored candidates. Specifically, I looked at what terms the endorsement editorials in the Journal Sentinel and the Shepherd Express used to praise the candidates the endorsed and to criticize their opponents.

There is no question about the Journal’s favorite term. In a fairly short editorial, I count it using “reform” or “reformers” nine time. But, one may ask, doesn't everyone want to be considered a reformer? Does also claim the mantle of reform? Not at all. In a much longer series of endorsement editorials, the Shepherd does not once mention reform.

Instead of reform, the Shepherd wants strong loyalty to MPS from its board members. One candidate is described as a “defender of public schools.” A second is an “advocate for public schools.” A third a “passionate advocate of public education.”

What form does this defense of public education take? In the Shepherd’s view it largely consists of opposition to anything that might compete with conventional public schools. The only word I found shared by both editorials was “charter.” But the attitude towards charter schools were diametrically opposed. While the Journal praised candidates’ involvement charter schools as reflecting a willingness to innovate, the Shepherd found such involvement showed alarming disloyalty to MPS.

Thus the reformers and defenders–and their supporters–have very different philosophies as to the proper role for board members. Reformers want the board to push for improvement while defenders see it as protecting MPS from its enemies.