As a vigorous online discussion among education reformers unfolds about just what to make of the tone and topics at New Schools Venture Fund’s recent summit (see, for example Marilyn Rhames, Robert Pondiscio, Justin Cohen and numerous co-signers including myself, Stacey Childress, Jay Greene, Marilyn Rhames, Christ Stewart, Alma Marquez and Kathleen Porter Magee), I want to second the sentiment that a number of others have expressed: a deeper examination of race, racism, poverty and other underlying societal frames is a positive development for all of us interested in transforming the provision of schooling in this country. This will not always be easy or comfortable. And as some have pointed out, there are very real perils here if reformers can’t talk effectively across difference and hold to some essential common ground — common ground that has served us well in Red, Blue and Purple states over the past twenty years.

But I believe we are up to this challenge — and a big reason to push forward in such a dialogue is that if we are honest with ourselves, despite some amazing educational bright spots created through twenty years of hard work, we have not come close to achieving the kind of transformational and sustainable public education system that provides great schools for every child in this country. It’s a good time for some self-examination and thoughtful discussion.

Without even getting into the question of whether the “Left-Right” coalition in education reform has already frayed to the point of disintegration, there’s another way to look at what was at issue in that opening session at New Schools Venture Fund’s Summit. In this alternative frame, the conversation is about how we go about achieving all the policy changes that we are seeking as reformers, and the role of “interests groups” versus “social movements.” As someone who used to lead a state-based education reform advocacy group I know I’m giving short shrift to some key federal level work in saying this, but you could argue that in the last twenty years, education reformers have focused on a model of policy change that has basically been about taking the playbook of interest groups, and spreading out across the country to try to get as good as the NRA and the California Prison Guards Association at driving policy change in state capitals. We haven’t done too badly at this (with a big assist from Race to the Top a few years back), but it’s also become really clear that this approach is only going to take us so far, especially when it comes to actually implementing the policies we’ve won in state capitals in a way that changes things for kids in classrooms over the long term. That very often takes much more deeply rooted support in the communities in which we are working — and that’s one of the ways the question of social movements comes up. And one of the key points made in the session at New Schools Venture Fund was that you’d be very hard pressed to find a successful social movement, from marriage equality to Civil Rights, that wasn’t led by the people who had the most at stake in the struggle. Another key point was that the strategy and tactics playbook for social movements is ideologically neutral — and indeed, some of those on the Right have arguably deployed this playbook to particular effect in recent decades.

So perhaps what’s at issue here is that we need to become ever more effective as interest groups, and at the same time make space for and support the transformative power of social movements. It seems pretty clear that in order for us to succeed in our ambition to fundamentally reshape American public education around the needs of students, many more people need to believe in our ideas and see that their future would be better if public education was shaped according to these ideas as opposed to those being pitched by defenders of the system as we know it. And for many white people, wherever they fall on the Left-Right spectrum, layered into all of this is the question of how to continue to show up as a leader in this work, while also stepping up as an ally to more and more people of color who are stepping forward to lead.

It’s not yet clear that a passion-filled social movement for transforming education in America actually will arise, but perhaps one of the best chances for this will be around one of the issues that arguably has the greatest potential to unite communities of color and conservatives — school choice. And if we can figure out how to add into that some of the innovative school models that Achievement First, Montessori for All and others are developing that promote the kinds of constructivist pedagogy that is not only educationally sound for all kids, but also appeals to the Whole Foods crowd (be they Democrats or Republicans like Mike Petrilli) then we might have the chance of making that social movement truly broad based enough to transform the institution of public schooling — an institution which has, despite our best “interest group” efforts so far, proven to be one of the most resilient replicators of systemic disadvantage the country has ever seen.