Through courses at Bowdoin College, I learned a lot about educational inequality and the various policies/trends that contribute to this inequality. Yet I never thought of community-organizing as a means to reform these unjust policies. Through this project, I learned the importance of grassroots activism, a community-driven movement in which persons most affected by societal injustice become their own advocates. In my research for grassroots organizations supporting the public nature of public schools, I discovered that there were three components to developing a grassroots organization: The first is to educate the public about the issues, the second is to organize and form an advocacy group, and the third is to mobilize through rallies, petitions, contacting policymakers, and the like.¹

In determining whether or not an organization was grassroots, one of the criteria given was whether or not the organization was funded by large organizations or foundations. This made me realize first the difficulty of obtaining funds for grassroots organizations, and also the way in which the interests of those who fund organizations can compromise the organizations’ integrity. (Grassroots organizations are often volunteer-based.) Yet despite this difficulty, I was impressed by the power and creativity of grassroots organizations in their efforts to affect change. The Grassroots Education Movement (GEMNYC), created a documentary showing the lived reality of public schools in NYC.¹ Great Schools for America has developed EdWatch, a database that screens organizations for privatization and corporate agendas.² Reading through the various initiatives of different organizations gave me hope that grassroots activism can help intervene in educational inequality.

In examining different grassroots organizations and their tactics, I was also struck by the importance of raising awareness and the importance of democracy. I found that the power accrued through numbers is necessary to gain the attention of policymakers. The grassroots organization, Texas Kids Can’t Wait, ranked legislators by their level of support for public education, in which support for public education was measured by how the legislators voted in 22 different bills.⁹ In providing this information, Texas Kids Can’t Wait sought to influence the public to vote for pro-public-education legislators, and to influence the legislators to support public education in order to gain more votes. Concerted voting can lead to community power in legislation.

For my particular topic concerning the public nature of public schools, I was surprised by the all-encompassing nature of these grassroots organizations. I found that being in defense of public education doesn’t just mean you oppose privatization efforts, but it also means you support the improvement of public schools overall. This means advocating for more funding, experienced teachers, less testing, community involvement in education reform, and more.

Since urban schools tend to be underfunded and under-performing, I learned that they are more vulnerable to the threat of privatization. Accountability measures like NCLB often lead to the closure of urban schools, as they are more likely to be labeled as failing.² I also learned that privatization contributes to the resegregation of schools. Though seeking to provide school choice, charter schools usually serve a more selective student population. In terms of demographics, charter schools serve fewer special needs students, English language learners, and low-income students.⁴³ As such, traditional public schools, particularly urban schools, serve the students who require more attention. Rather than reforming schools, school choice results in further segregation.

Through my research, I found that a major argument against privatization, and particularly charter schools, was the use of public funds for privately managed schools. Linda Ethridge, co-founder of Texas Kids Can’t Wait, declares that education funding is “‘an investment that all of the taxpayers make to ensure that we have an educated populace that can continue to manage a democracy well.’”⁹ Viewed in this manner, tuition shouldn’t follow students to private schools. Regardless of whether or not one’s child attends public school, it is a public duty to help fund public schools. Perhaps Diane Ravitch best embodies this sentiment. Though her own children went to private schools, Ravitch remains a staunch advocate for public schools. She states, “The public schools belong to the public. They are a public responsibility. Everyone has the right to advocate for them as well as to criticize them.”⁴⁸ To preserve our democracy, the U.S. must take on the responsibility of supporting and improving public schools.