Teachers’ union: parlez this

2 comments on “Teachers’ union: parlez this”

1. Posted by Publius | Aug 22, 2007 11:11 pm

   What exactly do you mean by “fundamental teacher union contract reform”? Keep in mind that a “teacher” contract is also called an agreement, one that is agreed to by a local union and the local school board.

   What is surprising is that the original idea of charter schools as they were concieved (by a teacher union leader, Al Shanker, no less) as an opposition to right-wing led/sponsored vouchers and tax credits ideas and attempts at legislation that would undermine the foundation and put at risk the very principle of public education.

   Originally, charters were supposed to be a vehicle to promote and increase teacher involvement in school; to bring teachers’ innate abilities and experiences to the challenges that existed outside of the classroom and allow them more of a leadership/ innovator role without crossing or blurring the managerial/ worker line. Charters were supposed to be watched carefully and operate for a limited time with the involvement of parents and community members at every step of the process.

   Today, charters have been painted by conservative anti-union groups, organizations and individuals as a response to “market forces”. At the time of their intellectual inception, as there was no market force outside of the handful of elite, high priced private schools or religious schools to compete with charters. Times have changed, and now “mom and pop” as well as “chain” charters are appearing on Ohio’s educational landscape.

   Briefly, chain charters are a calculated, profit-driven response to the lack of regulatory oversight that accompanies the millions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of students that defect each year. It is no surprise that White Hat’s David Brennan, whose for-profit Life Skills Charter schools operate throughout Ohio has been identified by the Columbus Dispatch as the number one donor to William Todd, the Republican candidate for Columbus Mayor, a proponent of mayoral control over the capital’s schools. Recently, the Ohio has seen the arrival of the Leona Group, a Michigan-based charter management firm that takes 12% of state funds per student for itself, and then helps itself to 50% of the year-end surplus of any school it manages.

   Market driven? Yes. Student Friendly? No.

   What has happened across the country is simply an aberration of the original intent behind charter schools.

2. Posted by Brian | Aug 23, 2007 10:08 am

   “Fundamental teacher union contract reform” is the Dispatch speaking, not me. And if the contract requires that an unqualified teacher gets a job at a school, then I’d agree that it needs to be reformed.

   It doesn’t matter that charters were intellectually conceived before the current voucher push. They were only widely adopted afterwards, as a direct response to market forces.

   I agree with you however that the govt should closely monitor schools that receive public vouchers. We should get that fixed rather than ending the program.

   “Student Friendly? No.” That’s my point about the teacher contract. How is it good for students at a French immersion school to have a non French-speaking teacher foisted on them? It was the contract that did that, not some latter day robber baron.

Leave a comment