It was Mao Zedong who once said that “all reactionaries are paper tigers.”  He thought that of the US, and told a journalist in 1956 that:

“In appearance it is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of
it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain.”

Mao’s definition actually doesn’t fit the US, but it does fit well the reality of the teachers unions here, particularly when you consider what just happened in the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia.

The New Jersey Education Association is considered almost the most powerful special interest in that whole state.

The Virginia Education Association is likewise a power broker for all policies, not just education but health, taxes, defense and more.

So why didn’t these forces prevail in their dogged campaigning and support for their union friendly candidates?

NJ Governor Corzine worked in tandem with the Jersey union leadership for four years.  Their electioneering is usually a safe bet.

Virginia challenger Deeds was similarly endorsed by the Virginia blob, but even that endorsement failed to merit the votes he needed.

That NYC Mayor Bloomberg also survived the strike of opposition against him in the most powerful union city in the country is testimony to the flimsiness of the message that most unions endorse.

We’re thrilled that ‘Hizzoner pulled it through so that his very strong education reform program can continue to bring student achievement up.

And, we’re grateful for the reminder in these three areas that the teachers unions are only as powerful as we let them be.  The people rained on their policies.  They blew past their influence.  Paper tigers can’t withstand the wind and rain.

“Explosive” results of a comprehensive, multi-year analysis of charter schools in New York City find students in charters more poor, more disadvantaged and from homes with lesser educational background, but closing the achievement gap by as much as 86 percent in math and 66 percent in reading.

So why is that news relegated to Page A27 of the New York Times, and only in a smattering of other papers elsewhere around the country?

This study by a noted Stanford University economist used an apples to apples comparison of real children - students who went to charters with those who did not get chosen by the lottery - rather than use intangible and relatively sketchy methodologies involving virtual students.

A less robust and, frankly, largely flawed study released in June by independent researchers at Stanford used that flawed methodology and made national headlines within a day of its press releases hitting the wires.

Their press roll out was criticized by charter advocates nationwide for misleading reporters. Indeed, the headlines then actually warned of charter students being behind in almost every state, without much credence for that or the general conclusions that now have every state legislator - along with union officials - saying charter success is overrated.

But the reality is: it’s not overrated. Charter schools do make an enormous difference in the life of a child and their family, particularly the longer they stay in a charter school.

The true gold-standard report issued Tuesday by Caroline Hoxby and her colleagues at the National Bureau of Economic Research tells the real story of a very big state that has the longevity and experience worthy of study and reporting.

It should not be buried in the depths of newspapers behind smaller, less significant news. Then again, Hoxby was worried about research, not PR.

(UPDATE: The Washington Post sees the importance of the Hoxby study, saying that “opponents of charter schools are going to have to come up with a new excuse”.)