NEA Resolves: Oppose Charter Growth
While the rest of us were picnicking over the Fourth, delegates to the National Education Association’s Representative Assembly were working their way through a barrage of resolutions covering everything from Iranian unrest to better health-club access for NEA members. This followed Arne Duncan’s Thursday stemwinder where he tried to nudge delegates out of their comfort zone, same as he did the week before with our troops at the National Charter Schools Conference.
The CA delegation sponsored several anti-charter motions, including one that would have organized a campaign to publicize charter schools' "funding, operational costs and salaries, curriculum, intrinsic problems, and corruption." They drew fire from their brethren in Wisconsin (where a bunch of district-authorized charters are unionized) and a gentle rebuff from Prez Dennis Van Roekel.
Two resos did win approval – one demanding that charters meet NEA criteria, (which basically say they have to be just like all other public schools); the other, more interesting, containing some sharp language but with a twist: NEA shall oppose any initiative to greatly expand the growth of charter schools and assist its state affiliates in identifying any effective practices incubated therein that could subsequently be implemented in our traditional public schools. By no means should this effort conflict with the ongoing and necessary work of organizing charter school teachers, nor should it conflict with charter schools that meet NEA guidelines.
Translation: Let’s keep these charter schools in their box – but copy whatever they’re doing that makes them work. And organize them – even it squashes the cool innovations “incubated therein.”
Ever the optimist, I say we meet ‘em and raise ‘em one. The charter movement itself should do a better job of identifying charter-bred innovations and offering them to all other educators. More on that front in the weeks to come….
I currently work at a charter school. I agree that the tests (myriad) might document how the school is doing against standardized tests - same as public schools. Where I see the problem is that the public schools are run in a way that NO shareholder of a public company would allow. They are inefficient and contain "non-fireable" employees similiar to the federal government. While I support the innovation and creativity that charter schools can provide, one has to face that they are non-profit organizations rarely run/governed by people with corporate/business background. That is to say, they use the public schools as a model because that's all many of them know. This is scary.
As a school outside the mainstream, we have a responsiblity to taxpayers to do "it" better than the public schools. That means paying attention to the basic elements of running an organization - be it a school, business or non-profit. I think mandatory basic business training for all "principals" is a must.
There is accountability by charters through No Child Left Behind, Annual Yearly Progress and State Standards. Are you not aware that public charter schools must have their charters approved by the state? The charters are gigantic documents that detail in every way how a charter will be operated.
Then, if charter schools do not make Annual Yearly Progress, they will go under review; may have the state take control of and run the school; or they may be shut down outright. Now, if you are talking abour private charter schools, those operate the same as any other private school and they have always done what they wanted to - they are private schools after all.
Would the state care about a private Christian school that decided to give it's administration a big bonus? No, the state has nothing to do with them. My state doesn't even have laws allowing charter schools, but you better believe I can start my own private school right now with very little state observation other than things like safety devices, building codes and other ordinances that are applicable to local code. If I can get people to pay tuition, I can start a school - same as private charters.
I love how charter shils never mention that most charters pay lousy, hence the hatred of all things unionized. How is that most Philly charters won't even talk to teachers in the Philadelphia School District that are still employed, but snatch up teachers that are fired by the same school district? Are charters really concerned about the quality of their teachers or just how cheaply they can get them? How come the turnover rate for charter schools is so high?
The charter system has been abused in the Philly area repeatedly. For ten years charters were able to get away with no supervision. Once the powers in charge actually took a look at the charters they found all sorts of abuse. Germantown, Raising Horizons, Philadelphia Academy Charter, Agora Cyber Charter. All had administrators using the schools funds to make themselves rich at the teachers' and students' expense. Google the Philadelphia Inquirer's story on Chester Charter and how the administration is one of the top paid while their teachers are one of the lowest paid in the state. Their scores have not improved in the ten years they have been going. Chester Charter has to make their new hires agree to pay them $2,000 if they leave before the school year ends. What decent school would need such a clause?
You obviously have no idea of what it's like to teach in a public school classroom in the 21st century. "A few incompetent and corrupt principals" betrays your lack of insight. Teacher abuse is rampant throughout the USA. In Philly teachers with tenure can and are fired, but principals caught are merely transferred to another school to screw that one up. At worst, a principal (who also have their union, CASA) will be "advised" to retire. We have seen principals that sexually harass, bully their staffs, steal mail and money flourish. As a result even in these tough times Philly has trouble filling all their teaching positions.
Charters have become a magnet for every scheming carpetbagger in America. The rich exploiting the poor.
You're right on your last point, Anonymous; if we take Arne Duncan's challenge seriously, we will be closing poorly performing charter schools.
But that doesn't mean that the NEA or any organization should stand in the way of the passionate, successful flood of good ideas and new energy that is the charter movement.
Charter supporters realize that the teachers unions are making themselves irrelevant by quibbling over work rules that should not be the priority today. While no reasonable person would argue that teachers have the full respect and compensation that they deserve in the system at large, the unions have justly fought hard and, by and large, won. The profession is very different, has much more prestige and respect than it did 40 years ago, and much of that credit goes to the unions.
However, the unions have not adapted to the present challenge, which is to support teachers to make them successful. Rather, they are still fighting a 1960s fight that is over and decided. Highlighting the abuses of a few incompetent and corrupt principals doesn't mean that teachers need ironclad job protection. Real accountability on schools and, by extension, principals - the kind that Linda Darling-Hammond spoke about at NEA this week - incents proper and respectful treatment of teachers. You no longer need these archaic and value-diluting work rules that keep principals from making the changes they need to make in order to ensure that teachers are treated properly.
I think even Al Shanker, who famously once said he'd represent kids' interest when they start paying dues, would argue that a satisfactory work environment must include the opportunity to be successful. Frankly, in an increasingly competitive global environment, that value is simply not compatible with the kinds of job protections and unsustainable pension plans the unions are advocating.
As a believer in democracy, I say if the unions don't get their heads out of the sand and jump on the charter bandwagon - even if that means taking a short-term loss of membership and dues - and start thinking long-term about what our nation's children of today and tomorrow truly need in education, they will become less and less relevant as the ideas that truly matter and truly resonate will rise to the forefront. Obama and Duncan are evidence of that.
I do understand the concern of the WI delegation. There have been several abuses of public tax payer charter monies by private charter schools. There were no reviews, guide lines, or accountability guidelines. Students lose. NEA has a concern that the money spent on charter schools be spent on school inovation that includes best practice and is accountable to someone other than themselves, charter schools. I have not spoken to a member of WEA who is against schools implementing best practice in a way that may look different from other schools. Public tax payer money should be spent to educate all children and make those who educate them acountable.
Post new comment