Yesterday, this blurb on "65% Solution" proposals (where it would be mandated that 65% of education budgets be spent in "classrooms,") popped into my inbox via a Google alert. Crafted by the DC-based activist group People for the American Way, it points out something important about this 65% Solution movement. (And like all good campaigns, they have a good label for the proposal they oppose, 'The 65% Deception"):

The 65 percent deception is being marketed in several states by a national organization called First Class Education. This group is headed by a long-time Republican political operative. It has received funding from internet millionaire Patrick Byrne, who has provided substantial funding to pro-voucher organizations and has publicly called for the abolishment of the National Education Association. Their stated political aims are to cause disunity in professional education organizations, soften up certain voters to vouchers and increase conservative turnout in elections via use of the initiative process – all at the expense of our schools and our children.

The connection between the policy being advanced and Patrick Byrne is one worth noting as someone evaluates what to make of this plan. A person's mere involvement normally shouldn't be enough to make people discount what they are pushing, but I think the public is much better served by knowing about the connection than by being in the dark.

This doesn't follow exactly (since I believe Byrne has been up-front about his involvement,) but bear with me as I stretch this a bit: Just like it is worth knowing that Byrne is helping pull the strings on the "65% Solution/Deception" (whichever flavor suits you) I'd argue it is also worth knowing that People for the American Way has very strong ties with the National Education Association. They not only pump a lot of cash from the union's coffers to PFAW, but NEA President Reg Weaver sits on the organization's board of directors.

Does this make what PFAW is saying wrong? Of course not. But just like Byrne in the 65% Solution push, it is worth knowing that the nation's largest teachers union has a link to this position paper, particularly when it supports (like this one does) the union's agenda.

Is it anti-Byrne to note his connection to the 65% Solution? I don't think so. Is it anti-union to note the NEA's connection to PFAW? Again, I don't think so, but many others disagree. See here and here, and make sure to read the comments.

The posts above deal with a controversial report I wrote for Education Sector that was released earlier this week. To be fair, the NEA hasn't made a big deal of this report: they consider it good politics to establish whatever kinds of relationships they can with groups that will help them advance their agenda. It's called political activism, and they are very good at it. They don't like the report, but they aren't doing victim back-flips about it either. But the defensive whining that has come in the report's wake from some others is a reminder of how bizarrely unlevel the playing field is in education.

Alexander Russo blogs on the report here. Kevin Carey blogs on it here. (Note: Carey was involved in editing the report.)

PS - I also think it is fair for critics of the report to point out that this blog is hosted by the New York Charter Schools Association, which raises money from charter schools in the state and charter school supporters.