I wrote this blog post in 2016. But this issue continues to be relevant to privatizing public schools. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I can understand the union’s desire to add members and support teachers in charter schools. But most charter schools have not evolved into that old concept of teacher-run schools. Charters and real public schools are at odds with each other, and embracing charter school teachers is an acceptance of charter schools in general. I believe it will lead to the end of traditional public schools. I think this is especially true in light of Betsy DeVos and the push for vouchers.
______________________________
There is a growing call for teachers in charter schools to get union representation. I disagree. There are too many charter schools that fail, and many are now designed for online competency-based instruction.
I know that there are some good charters. There are also young people who come from fast-track programs, like Teach for America, who are committed to children. But that doesn’t make charters real public schools, and it doesn’t make these young people real teachers either.
We need strong public schools and real career teachers. We need authentic democratic public schools that are owned by the people. Any good charter school should run as an alternative school with oversight by the school district. The school should be owned by the taxpayers.
Here is an updated post from two years ago when I broached this topic. I welcome comments, including from those who disagree with me. I know there are many educators who do. But please share with us why you do, or do not, think charter school teachers should be encouraged to join the union.
Why Unionizing Teachers In Charter Schools is a Bad Idea
In California, the new NEA leader Lily Eskelsen García is working to gather charter school teachers to unionize. The AFT also reaches out to charter school teachers.
Why is this a mistake?
Charter schools were originally supposed to be for public school teachers, principals and parents to run. Based on teacher/administrator Ray Budde’s early 1970’s thesis and the support by AFT president Albert Shanker, charter schools were to be learning laboratories for teachers to show their professionalism. The AFT even came up with a list of rules for charters.
Charter schools were to:
- Be tuition-free, not-for-profit, and open and accessible to all students on an equal basis.
- Operate transparently by fully disclosing their finances, curriculum, student demographics and academic outcomes to parents and the public.
- Meet or exceed the same academic standards and assessment requirements that apply to other public schools.
- Hire well-qualified teachers.
- Work cooperatively with local school districts.
- Permit their employees to freely form unions.
I can no longer find the AFT page that listed those conditions. But one can see how most charter schools differ from the stipulations on this list. Unions should not focus on just the last rule.
The charter school concept was stolen by the business crowd after Chris Whittle’s failed attempt to push for-profit Edison Schools on the public. Edison schools failed. Edison Schools, Inc., is now a for-profit school management organization for the United States and the United Kingdom. HERE.
Albert Shanker apparently saw this coming before he died, and he knew exactly what kind of train had left the station. Now charters are a mix of a few good ones, a lot of bad ones, and many that are run unnecessarily like military schools for the poor. Too often they are segregated.
After random drawings, reminiscent of the Hunger Games, parents sign off on rules and are usually counseled out if they have students with special needs, or who require assistance with a second language. Most charter schools are not equipped to serve these students with their unique needs.
Still, these actions should definitely remove the “public” from charter schools. The only thing really public about these schools are the public funds they siphon from true public schools. Even the NAACP is criticizing charter schools.
So what is the union going to change about these schools if they get the charter teachers to join the union? Do they think they will recapture Ray Budde’s idea and the original charter school concept? That’s exactly what I believe they think, but they are misguided.
Union leaders, it would seem, should admit to the stealing of that original concept. That old Ray Budde idea is long gone.
They should instead throw their mighty force behind traditional public schools which, thus far, have done better than charter schools.
They should not think they will somehow remake the charters by collecting members who teach in those schools. It is also unfair to allow a fast-track-made instructor to receive union representation like they are a real teacher.
By soliciting members from charter schools, and even unionizing those schools, they give charter schools credibility. They are saying we can represent these schools and jump into the marketplace, competing with non-union charters. They ultimately won’t win that game.
For-profit, online charter schools are the end goal, and charter school corruption, where operators run away with millions without getting the job done, while being ignored by the mainstream media, is still a reality.
The unions should strongly oppose charter schools. Charter schools are unfairly running real public schools out of town.
They should not embrace Milton Freidman’s free market competition when it comes to public schools. They have tried before and it didn’t work. It muddies the waters and makes it look like educators have accepted business run schools.
America does not need dueling schools. The original concept of public schools for all students is a fine one. Our public schools should be democratically run, and their doors should be open to all children.
President García’s and Weingarten’s focus should be on reestablishing the credibility of traditional public schools, not recruiting members from a hodge-podge of charters and validating those schools.
Any good charter school should be brought under the wing of the local school district, with ultimate governing by a local school board, and the teachers should be fairly educated and receive authentic credentials in the area they are to teach.
Or, the older one. HERE.
Help me, Nancy–where are the good charter schools?
Well, Jim, whenever I mention charters someone tells me about a good one they know about–or that their child attends. So, let those good ones be under the umbrella of the local school district where we can see exactly what they do and who they are! I don’t know of any. Certainly not in Memphis.
Unions protect workers, right? They bargain for salaries, working conditions, and fund movements and groups to further an agenda that addresses workers, and by extension, the industry as a whole.
Many teachers who are looking for work who would rather work in a traditional public school often have to take what they can get, and so end up working in a charter.
Should those teachers stuck in charters unionize? Doesn’t that help teachers?
I don’t understand why one would discourage unionism. Discourage shitty charters for sure, but the poor souls stuck working in them? Let them unionize!
Or, am I naive?
You make a valid point, Richard. Perhaps the teachers who are real teachers should be allowed to join. The problem is that the charter schools will be legitimized more than they already are, and before you know it they will be the only schools left.
I also wonder what good joining the union will do for a teacher in a charter that runs by its own rules. Will the union fight for that teacher and their rights in the charter school?
I totally agree with the author about charter schools. While originally it may have been a good idea, it has become something totally different, harmful to our public school system. We should fight the charter movement. I am very glad that the NAACP is now asking for a moratorium on them.
All that said, i disagree with the author’s implication that to unionize the teachers in a charter school, is somehow to validate charter schools. I don’t think so. If a union tries to unionize Walmart workers (which is opposed by Walmart management), is that supporting Walmart.
The charter operators are steadfastly opposed to unionization, and in fact have played all kinds of dirty tricks to stop it. They would love it if teacher unions stopped trying to unionize their schools. We would be playing right into charter management’s hands by doing that. On the other hand, unionizing charter teachers, giving them more rights, better pay, etc., hurts charter management. Unionizing charter teachers is not supporting charter schools, but quite the contrary.
I do not think there is any contradiction between teacher union leadership fighting privatizon of our public schools through charters, and at the same time unionizing charter teachers. IMO no problem with doing both, no contradiction.
It is also not true to say that charter schools are all young and inexperienced, not real teachers. When many teachers were laid off from LAUSD, many found work teaching in charter schools. Are they teaching in charters because they prefer charters? No. It is because they lost their public school positions (where they would have preferred to stay), and the only jobs they could find where in charters. Do we look at our colleague teachers who were laid off, now teaching in charters, as enemies? Or still as our colleagues, who we want to help with their rights in their new situation? (while still fighting the charter movement overall)
Thanks, Mike. And you make great points. But let’s look at LAUSD. It is fast becoming mostly charter schools. Has unionizing teachers helped? How will it help other than create charters where teachers work with often for-profit management?
No one says we need to look at charter teachers as the enemy. But how is the union helping them in the charter school environment push back on charters?
To create better working conditions in the charter school means a set up of a secondary system–one where teachers often don’t get the same benefits and/or bargaining positions at the table.
My point is why doesn’t the union fight harder for traditional public schools with better working conditions for teachers, Instead, I believe they are helping to create a whole other system–one that often doesn’t value real career teachers.
I am in LAUSD! I agree. We are drowning in charter co-locations and I am perplexed that my Union is wasting resources, energy, money, time to try to unionize others while my colleagues and community are struggling to keep public education strong. When a charter gets a contract, it legitimizes them as a public school when in fact their contract is a weak one. It is like the post office spending dues to organize fed ex…hmm.
Thanks for sharing, Lucia. LAUSD is really threatened with charters. That’s a great analogy. I hope things turn around there for you and public schools.