|
"Charter laws give educators and parents the opportunity to create the schools of their dreams."
At the same time, in nearly every state that has passed charter school legislation, charters have come not with the help or acquiescence of the NEA's affiliates, but over the vigorous objections of the NEA affiliate in that state. When these objections fail, union lobbyists press for limits on the number or type of charter schools, or for chartering procedures that make it easy to block new schools that union officials don't like. NEA affiliates have challenged charter bills in court. And attempts to rollback charter laws continue to this day, most of them engineered by NEA affiliates. IS THE NEA confused over the issue of charter schools, or ambivalent? Is NEA jumping on the charter school train, being run over by it, or trying to derail it? The answers to these questions are crucial to determining the future of charter schools, and of widespread education reform in general. Charter schools, which are exempted from many state laws and other regulatory encumbrances in exchange for an opportunity to innovate in curriculum, instruction or structure, are governed by a charter -- a compact between the founders of the school and the authorizing board. The charter is in fact a contract between the school and those to whom the school is accountable. First established in Minnesota in 1991, charters have grown to the point where 34 states currently have charter school laws on the books. The key to understanding the NEA's evolving and inconsistent position can be found in California. Back in 1992, the California Teachers Association faced two simultaneous challenges to the status quo in education. One was a ballot initiative to provide for school vouchers throughout the state. The second was legislation, authored by State Senator Gary Hart, a Democrat, to create charter schools in the state. CTA opposed the Hart bill. "There is no proof that opening charter schools provides any benefits to students that are not already provided in their local school districts," said CTA President Del Weber. However, union officials were concerned that absolute refusal to consider the idea would hurt their campaign against the voucher initiative. So they sponsored an alternative bill that would have allowed charters, but tied them to their district's collective bargaining agreements. Hart countered this maneuver with a maneuver of his own, which got both charter bills passed and both sent to Gov. Pete Wilson. Wilson, a CTA nemesis, quite naturally signed the Hart bill and vetoed the CTA bill. The union was livid. "It was a major double-cross," said Weber. "They are very concerned about any legislation that could adversely impact collective bargaining," Hart told me. "That is why they vigorously opposed my charter legislation." Over the next three years, charter laws were being passed in state after state. And in state after state, the strategy of NEA and its affiliates was the same. First: defeat charters in their entirety. If that was not possible, then lobby for specific restrictions, especially that they be subject not only to collective bargaining, but the collective bargaining agreements of the districts in which they were established. BY 1995, THE union decided to take a big step. Association lobbyists decided to create their own charter schools. This would serve two purposes: one, the schools would be models for the types of charters NEA could live with; and two, the union could expect positive press coverage, which it got. NEA hates being portrayed as the roadblock to education reform. The union will take every opportunity to counteract that perception. A charter school initiative was a perfect vehicle. The plan was announced with fanfare: "Freed from the bureaucratic constraints imposed on other public schools, charter schools provide places to develop better ways to improve student learning," read the NEA initiative. "If ties to regular schools in the community are strong, charter schools can be an important vehicle to improve educational opportunities for all students." NEA needed the charter schools and it wasn't going to let anything stand in its way. It pledged to spend $1.5 million over five years to get them up and running. The original plan was to establish six schools in six states. The first to open was in Lanikai, Hawaii, whose situation has remained relatively stable. The same could not be said for NEA's other charter schools. In Colorado Springs, Colorado, NEA approved a charter school called the Character, Integrity, Vision and the Arts (CIVA) school. With 140 students and a staff of 10, the school faced the same difficulties as every other charter school and, paradoxically enough, the same opponents, the local union. That's right. While Jan Noble, the president of the Colorado Springs Education Association, was the architect of CIVA, many of her members were adamantly opposed. So opposed, in fact, that they attempted to recall Noble from office. Indeed, Noble's motives for supporting a charter school seemed largely tactical. She called the charters a chance "to get the taxpayers on our side." She feels her efforts were not in vain. "I can't deny that we did this a little because of PR, because now our reputation is one of professionalism," Noble said. When lobbying, NEA affiliates insist that charters receive the blessing of district teachers before getting approval from the final district or state authority. Yet when Colorado Springs teachers wanted to vote on CIVA in 1997, Noble wouldn't allow it. She told Education Week she was convinced they would have turned it down. The NEA charters were not faring any better elsewhere. The third charter was supposed to open in East Point, Georgia. NEA approved a teacher-led initiative to convert Woodland Middle School to a charter. But after several attempts, the teachers simply could not generate enough support among their own colleagues for the plan. Such strong opposition among teachers caught NEA by surprise, but it shouldn't have. It's quite logical. The appeal of charter schools is the freedom from rules and regulations. The people who are likely to go through all the trouble to create a charter school don't care where those rules and regulations came from, whether it was the state government, the local government, the district, the union, or the labor contract itself. The whole point is to throw out as many of these rules and regulations as possible. NEA argues that this leaves no rules and regulations. But the charter, the actual agreement, contains rules and regulations. It's just that there are a lot fewer -- and the ones that are applied, for the most part, were created by the people who establish the school, and agreed to by the controlling authority. The people who live under the rules make them, and they are ultimately accountable for what happens thereafter. If you're happy with the rules and regulations established by your collective bargaining agreement, why would you want to start a charter school? A union charter school is therefore perceived either as unnecessary, merely replicating the existing public school contract -- or, different, but thereby, a threat to the status quo. This is what happened in Colorado Springs and East Point, but it was mild compared to what happened next in Connecticut. WHEN ITS GEORGIA plan fell through, NEA needed a substitute. Union officials found what they thought was an excellent candidate in Norwich, Connecticut. A small group of teachers wanted to create the Integrated Day Charter School for 175 students and a staff of eight. The officers of the Norwich Teachers League opposed the charter school. They held a vote and the charter proposal was defeated. The proposal was also rejected by the local school board. Just as NEA affiliates insist that teachers give their blessing to charters, they also insist that only local districts have the authority to grant charters. A recent illustration of this occurred in Massachusetts. Engaged in its own battle against charter schools, the Massachusetts Teachers Association noted in a press release: "We do not believe that districts should be required to host and finance any school that they do not believe is in the best interest of children in their community." The Michigan Education Association also filed suit against this practice in its state. CONNECTICUT allows a state panel to grant a limited number of charters to schools that have been turned down by their districts. So, despite having lobbied against allowing such a provisoin, the NEA went to the state and got its charter. And whereas the union normally insists that charter schools must be subject to the existing collective bargaining agreement for an entire district, in Norwich, the NEA has allowed what its official description of the program delicately calls "special language" and "certain waivers" that are "in the interest of the charter school itself." In other words, Integrated Day teachers to formed their own local, and negotiated their own contract with the district. Now in the fourth year of the five-year experiment, these three schools are the only ones operating, with two more planning to open in the fall. In the meantime, NEA affiliates are trying to turn charter schools back into something resembling the public schools they were originally conceived to differ from. NOWHERE IS the effort more obvious than in California. The most recent attack is based on the notion that charter school teachers who are not represented by their local's collective bargaining agreement are somehow being exploited. In California, the union is sponsoring legislation that would require charter schools to abide by the local contract. In California, as in most states, charter teachers can remain part of their local union, form their own union, or belong to no union at all. Since all teachers at charters are volunteers, no one is coerced into anything against his or her will. "If this passes, we're dead," said Yvonne Chan, a charter school principal. "If this passes it will be the districts and the unions that run charter schools." The union disagrees. "This bill clearly states that if teachers want to negotiate different conditions, they can do that," added CTA spokesman Mike Myslinski. In fact, however, the bill says this: "Nothing in this subdivision shall prohibit the exclusive representative of certified or classified employees employed in the charter school from mutually agreeing with the district to amend the collective bargaining agreement as it applies to employees in the charter school to address the charter school's site-specific issues, including but not limited to, discipline and dismissal." That's legislative lingo for "the local union can amend the contract for charter school employees, if it so desires." The charter school teachers don't have that power and, in fact, the union could conceivably amend the contract to the detriment of the charter school teachers. Somehow, this is supposed to make charter school teachers rhapsodic. "[The bill] would enhance the appeal of charter schools by guaranteeing that teachers and other school personnel in charter schools would have the same contract-bargaining rights as teachers in other public schools around the state," said CTA President Lois Tinson. But when Investor's Business Daily asked CTA about charter school teachers who were being treated unfairly, the union couldn't come up with any. "Nothing's come to my attention," CTA's Myslinski said. Do charter schools want to be represented in collective bargaining, IBD asked? "We haven't polled them or anything like that," he said. IN FACT, the union knows that charter school teachers are satisfied with their working conditions. Researcher Julia Koppich performed a survey of charter school teachers for NEA in 1998. As reported by the Associated Press, the findings "suggest that teachers are pleased with working conditions at charter schools but lose the sense their schools are still public schools and have less interest in union membership." The AP story continued. "Koppich said many charter school teachers relish their freedom even if wages and benefits are lower at some schools. 'Levels of salaries and benefits are not a big issue,' she said. 'Even those with lower salaries feel they are compensated for by professional freedom.' Koppich said many felt secure in their jobs even though all they had was a one-year work agreement." Less interest in union membership and satisfaction with lower wages and benefits trump any benefits charter schools might have, at least as far as the union is concerned. And when communicating among themselves, their true motives are exposed. A representative of the California Staff Organization, which is the staff union of CTA employees, attended a recent charter school conference. The unnamed staffer posted a report for his or her colleagues, a few excerpts of which I reprint here: "No evidence exists that the elimination of a collective bargaining agreement or a modified education code leads to a more effective classroom." "While the private sector ignores the failure of capitalism to improve the lifestyle for most Americans, marketplace public relation experts and spin-doctors have demonized government and the public sector." "However, it is becoming increasingly evident that the organizers behind charter schools, vouchers and the privatization of public education are cut from the same cloth as those who would outlaw unions, ignore democratic principles and the ills of society. What drives these individuals are profits and an isolationist mental model which emphasizes individual rights while minimizing responsibilities to our communities and society in general.... Charter schools are often the playground for malcontents, ostracized administrators and ill-advised parents and community members." Contrast those remarks with these from a speech by NEA President Bob Chase before the National Press Club last March. Chase received much praise for these sentiments: "NEA also needs to get out of the way. We can't allow union sacred cows to block the path of members who want to pursue their own vision of school quality and reform." "Let me be clear: I believe in collective bargaining. I believe that collective bargaining is indispensable. But collective bargaining is a tool, not an altar. And right now, in most places, this tool is too narrowly focused on the terms and conditions of employment." "A great wall of contract protections can have the unintended effect of blocking necessary changes. It's ironic, but in the name of protecting our members from dysfunctional systems, we sometimes end up helping to perpetuate those very systems!" What are we to make of Mr. Chase's statements? How can he talk about ignoring union sacred cows while his California affiliate is fattening them? The key to understanding the union and reform is the question of control. THE CHARTER school concept itself threatens the system, which is why the NEA, like a Soviet factory manager trying to "make the system run efficiently," keeps trying to shove charter schools back into a non-charter box. No matter what Mr. Chasemay intend, and no matter what press releases NEA may send out, the association's embrace of any concept that would change incentives and management seldom seems to be anything more than tactical - a concession to political force to be reversed at the earliest opportunity, as in California. With friends like the NEA, charter schools need no enemies. Mike Antonucci is director of the Education Intelligence Agency, which conducts public education research, analysis and investigations. |
Home | Publications | Search | Opportunity Africa | Democracy China | Cuba | Defense | Education Reform | Environment | Immigration | Intellectual Property | International Monetary Fund | Democracy Switzerland | Taxes and Regulation | Technology | Telecom |
So said Robert Chase, now president of the National Education Association, as the NEA launched its Charter Schools Initiative in 1995. Since then, the NEA has helped establish charter schools around the country and developed extensive standards and benchmarks for them. Though we're only talking about five schools, with about 1000 students or so -- one good-sized high school -- Chase and the association trumpet the initiative as proving their support for outside-the-box thinking and education entrepreneurship.