[EPI welcomes
reader
feedback.]
How the NSBA Stifles Dissent
Potentially, one of the most promising sources of
educational reform is the National School Boards Association
(NSBA). In practice, NSBA is not an important player, but
the reason is not ideological rigidity among NSBA members.
Instead, the reason is organization policies intended to
prevent thorough, candid presentation of conflicting views.
This conclusion will surprise even some NSBA members, so let
me explain.
When delegates to a national organization want to affect
the policies of the organization, they must find a way to
meet with like-minded delegates. This is essential to
formulate the specific actions sought by the delegates, and
to plan strategy and tactics in the controversy that emerges
whenever the organizational status quo or the leadership
agenda is challenged. Caucuses are the main vehicle utilized
to facilitate the ability of delegates to play an effective
role in organizational policymaking. Caucuses are like
political parties within the organization. They enable
members who share a point of view to come together,
articulate their ideas on what should be done and why, and
plan the practical steps required to have their positions
adopted by the organization. A comparison of NSBA to NEA
policies on caucuses is instructive.
In the NEA, virtually any group of delegates to the NEA's
national convention can form and be recognized as a caucus.
The NEA publishes the names and addresses of caucus leaders
in the NEA Handbook so that any interested delegate can find
out more about the caucuses and become a member of any that
appeal to the delegate. The NEA arranges for caucus meeting
rooms at its national convention, and publishes a convention
schedule that explicitly reserves time and rooms for caucus
meetings during the convention. The NEA also requires that
any caucus that is accorded these privileges must be open to
any member of the NEA, a rule that has both positive and
negative aspects. The positive aspect is that caucus critics
or delegates who just wish to find out more about a caucus
cannot be prohibited from attending caucus meetings. The
negative aspect is that the rule is subject to abuse by
delegates who are opposed to the objectives of the caucus.
For example, Democrats could join the Republican caucus (or
vice versa) just to learn more about the strategy and
tactics and plans of its opposition.
Caucus dues in the NEA are quite low -- $10 to $25 in
most caucuses. Altogether, the 1999-2000 NEA Handbook lists
36 caucuses: six are ethnic caucuses; ten are based on
occupational specialties, such as counselors or educational
support personnel; eleven are public policy caucuses,
including a Democratic Party and a Republican Party caucus.
Some, such as the Gay and Lesbian Educators Caucus, are
devoted to one issue or cluster of issues. The other
caucuses do not fit any pattern. It is somewhat surprising
that there is no caucus in the NEA explicitly intended to
provide organizational leadership and agendas on a
continuing basis; the NEA is a political environment with
several interest groups but no party that openly seeks
control of the association. Undoubtedly, there are caucus
meetings with this objective in mind, but none of the NEA
caucuses are a broad-based political party within the NEA.
The Republican and Democratic caucuses function to promote
their political parties outside of the NEA; they do not run
slates of candidates for office to control the NEA.
NSBA presents a much different approach to caucuses. A
few years ago, a group of conservative school board members,
disturbed by NSBA's acquiescence to liberal Democratic
policies and the inadequate presentation of other positions
at NSBA conventions requested recognition of a "conservative
caucus." At the time, only four caucuses were recognized in
the NSBA convention program and governance structure: the
black caucus, the Hispanic caucus, the American
Indian/Alaska Native caucus, and the caucus of board members
under 40 years of age.
The NSBA still has recognized only the four caucuses
mentioned above. NSBA declined to recognize the conservative
caucus, and stated that recognition in the future would be
extended only to disadvantaged minorities. Why should NSBA
be opposed to caucuses based on policy positions? The effect
of its opposition is to minimize debate over policy at NSBA
conventions. This is indefensible in an organization
ostensibly devoted to policy issues. In fact, given the
relatively high turnover among delegates to NSBA
conventions, there is especially strong reason to foster
serious discussion and debate on critical policy issues
among the delegates, but this is not what NSBA officers and
staff want to see. Such debate would render it more
difficult for the leadership to achieve NSBA support for its
agenda, and might have repercussions throughout the NSBA
hierarchy as well.
Of course, if you attend NSBA conventions, you will
encounter plenty of debate. For the most part, however, it
is on issues unlikely to matter very much to education or to
most delegates. Unfortunately, secondary issues dominate
NSBA's national convention.
Thus, it turns out that at the convention level, the NEA
is a much more open and democratic organization than the
NSBA. An organization that operates on the assumption that
ethnicity and age are the only legitimate basis for a caucus
is a disgrace to the ideals that NSBA professes to foster.
|
Building a Competitive Education Industry
