| coalitions vs. "permanent" state-level lobbying |
6/7/04 11:56 AM |
| Author:
Jim Diana
|
 |
I agree with Joe Nathan's comments about the value of forming coalitions with other charter school supporters. I would argue, though, that in a state where charter school supporters are poorly funded and not well organized, what Joe describes as a coalition often comes down to one or two committed, persuasive, individuals in the charter school movement convincing others (corporations, etc.) to lobby on behalf of a particular piece of charter school legislation. Those other players have many issues before the legislature at any given time, and they have to make choices about what they are willing to push for.
What I would like to see, at least in my state, is an organization that is working full time, year-round, to advance the common causes of charter schools - removal of our state's 100-school cap, less regulation, facilities financing, etc. When we have such an organization, then we will be in a position to join coalitions around sepcific issues as a co-equal member of the coalition with other interest groups.
That kind of more-or-less permanent effort is what I meant when I referred to "investing in an advocacy infrastructure." The major hurdle I see is how to fund such an effort on a sustainable basis, rather than relying on the volunteer efforts of true believers.
Posted as a reply to:
Influencing Policy by Bob Montgomery 
|
|
