When starting this research, I was conflicted on the issue of charter schools in urban areas. As I went to a charter school myself, I saw this research as an opportunity to solidify my opinion. Although the charter school debate is so decisive, both sides of the argument have merit. This research has taught me that charter schools, especially in the city of Boston, is not a black and white issue. Essentially, both sides of the argument address the failures within urban public education. The drastic disparities in resources and opportunities for students in urban schools versus suburban ones reveal the unequal access to free, quality education. Some advocate for more funding to better the existing public schools. Others push for the creation of charter schools as an alternative to the district ones.

Learning about the various organizations attached to each cause was instrumental in my developing my opinion. In the beginning of my research, I  looked for grassroots campaigns on the pro charter side. After an unsuccessful search, I realized a trend among the nonprofits advocating for charter schools. They generally identify as nonprofits, and used trigger words, like “local action” and “community based”. Despite this, these organizations are huge, and rich. It was then that I realized the power dynamic of the charter v public district schools. Wealthy “education reformers” are simply funneling money into local campaigns. Because they can outspend any competitors, sometimes they win. Question 2 on the 2016 Massachusetts ballot serves an example of a battle these reformers lost. Because wealthy foundations like Families for Excellent Schools (FES) want increased charter schools, they interfere in local politics without care for possible repercussions. For example, Families for Excellent Schools donated millions of dollars for the campaign to expand charter schools in MA. If the ballot passed, then they would have impacted a community that they do not live in. Despite the success for local groups, they are still constantly in battle with the wealthy pro charter advocates. The local anti charter groups are largely more in tune with the needs of their community, and have a high level of social clout in their communities. On the other hand, the pro charter movement effectively utilizes their deep pockets to run enticing campaigns. Although it did not work in the ballot, the increasing influence of this “dark money” is overpowering local teacher unions and grassroots campaigns across the country. Too often, simply understanding the needs of a community is not sufficient to win campaigns.

Upon understanding the dichotomy between pro and anti charter campaigns, I fully side against charter schools. Despite this, it seems really easy to become paralyzed by the unfair advantage that the wealthy hold. Organizations with massive hedge fund backing are intimidating to oppose. It can seem too daunting. Historically, the wealthiest have, for better or worse, always had the platform to make drastic changes. However, examples of teacher unions and community organizers defeating outside money can be used as case studies to learn from. In the MA ballot for example, the pro charter side spent significantly more on their campaign despite losing. This exemplifies the a true grassroots approach. By placing a heavier emphasis on door to door canvasing and empowering the community to advocate for themselves, the citizens of MA largely refused to be influenced by outside money. Campaigns that focus on unity and are truly in touch with the needs of the community will always have the opportunity to defeat the well funded pro charter organizations.

While it is tragic that urban schools are subject to the desires of the hyper wealthy, it is comforting to know that community activists in Boston are aware of the problem. If citizens of MA were not aware of the intense divide, they learned after the 2016 ballot question. As it was the most expensive campaign in MA’s history of ballot questions, it confirmed the involvement of a new entity. The fact is Massachusetts ballot questions would not spend over $41 million without the presence of outside money. Pro charter groups force the grassroots campaigns to spend more in efforts to keep up. These wealthy groups also strive to appear locally based as a tactic to match the personal touch of the anti charter movements. In this case, they failed. Maybe it was because the proposed law was too presumptuous, with not enough specific information on the number of charters that could open. Maybe it was because teacher unions still have major influence among MA voters. Maybe it was the two op-ed’s written by two local Boston leaders Mayor Marty Walsh and Juan Codfield. In any case, the campaign was won because the community was not silent. Action was taken.