School vouchers rise from the ashes; EIA Commuique: Report on Charter Schools and Unions Misses the Point; Hillary, vouchers, etc.; Charter schools: Ideals vs. gritty reality

From the 10/31 EIA Communique (www.eiaonline.com;  EducationIntel@aol.com).  Some very valid points here: "But as long as there is a growing network of schools – particularly public schools – where union membership is not required, and is, in fact, rare, the teachers' unions will oppose them, regardless of the quality of the school's program, the desires of its staff, or the satisfaction of students and parents...The battle over charter schools has little to do with education, and everything to do with labor and economics. Unless we address it that way, there is no resolution possible." 

Report on Charter Schools and Unions Misses the Point. EIA highly recommends the new report by the National Charter School Research Project titled The Future of Charter Schools and Teachers Unions. Authored by Paul T. Hill, Lydia Rainey, and Andrew J. Rotherham, the report summarizes the conclusions of a symposium held last May that included various luminaries from both the charter school and union worlds. Judging solely by the report, there were some fireworks.

 

The symposium provided an excellent examination of the divide between the two camps, how each judges the other by their most extreme opponents, and how each believes the other is misguided.

 

And, as is the norm for this type of symposium, the two sides cited the need to find some common ground, and in some cases even found some.

 

But so what? We shouldn't be surprised that the discussion focused on charter schools – how they operate, how they're funded, whether they're conducive to quality teaching, and whether there is a place for collective bargaining. These are all superb questions, but they have little to do with the chasm between unions and charters.

 

What is the union position on charter schools? Let's hit the ping pong ball back and forth across the table. AFT credits Al Shanker with dreaming up the idea. Teachers' unions fought against every single state law to establish charter schools. NEA started a Charter School Initiative in 1995. AFT called charter schools "a diversion from reformers' and policymakers' efforts to improve education in America." NEA ended its Charter School Initiative in 2000, which, by all accounts, was a failure. In 2001, NEA decided to rank charters "on a continuum ranging from outright support to reluctant acquiescence to categorical opposition." The United Federation of Teachers opened two charter schools of its own. Last week, the Wisconsin Education Association Council posted a press release that began, "The state's current charter school program is working 'reasonably well' and should not be expanded."

 

So unions are for charter schools, except when they're against them. Or both.

 

To me, this suggests quite strongly that charter schools are not the cause of this great divide. Gee, what else could it be? I don't know, maybe union membership? The symposium and the report looked at a lot of different bones of contention from the viewpoints of both the charters and the unions, but failed to note that unions need members. And if they have members, they need more members. If charter schools were unionized, they would be no more of a threat to NEA and AFT than are magnet schools, alternative schools, open enrollment schools, or any of the other public "schools of choice" that currently exist. The union's relative position on charters would be limited to how well its locals fare in the enforcement of the contract, and the level of salaries, benefits and working conditions.

 

But as long as there is a growing network of schools – particularly public schools – where union membership is not required, and is, in fact, rare, the teachers' unions will oppose them, regardless of the quality of the school's program, the desires of its staff, or the satisfaction of students and parents.

 

When you try to lift the cap on the creation of new charter schools, you're asking the union to acquiesce to an increase in the number of non-union public schools. When funds follow the children from public schools to charters, they are used to pay non-union teachers and may result in layoffs of union teachers.

 

Business professionals who involve themselves in charter schools need to recognize that teachers' unions are in the membership business. They "sell" services to education employees. Your operation model takes away their customers.

 

The battle over charter schools has little to do with education, and everything to do with labor and economics. Unless we address it that way, there is no resolution possible.

---------------------

Charter schools: Ideals vs. gritty reality
Thursday, Nov 16, 2006

By John Brummett

Near the bottom of this space the other day, I invoked the hopeful prospect of KIPP-like charter schools all across the Delta. I called for support toward that end from the Walton Foundation in concert with audacious leadership from our new governor, Mike Beebe.