GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

You make good points, but I’d question many of your assumptions.

http://www.ppionline.org/documents/Public_Ed.pdf

This article is stupid. New York State Education Law says that charter schools are public schools. I don’t think we need your various ruminations on the subject in light of that.

Raph,

Which assumptions do you question, and why? Would you care that make your particular objections a bit more explicit?

Thank you for this excellent post.

QueensParent,

The New York legislature says all kinds of things that various people and groups disagree with for various reasons. I am hardly the first person to offer a viewpoint different than theirs.

For example, many believe that we should lift or abolish the cap on the number of charter schools in the state.

Clearly, I am not limiting myself to a legal argument, but I am not sure that that your quasi-legal argument holds. Has any court found that charter school employees are public employees? Has that been adjudicated?

By your arguments, public universities are not “public” schools. They are not run by elected boards, and university presidents cannot be removed by public elections. They do not serve every student who shows up; they select their students through an application process. Yet I still think they are public institutions designed to provide a public good.

Charter schools are public schools, each run by a board of trustees, which is accountable to an authorizer. In New York the authorizers are the Board of Regents or the Board of Trustees of SUNY, both of which are appointed by elected officials. The school board of a charter school has a fiduciary responsibility to use public funds to serve its students, and board members can be removed for violating that responsibility.

Many public schools do not have an obligation to accept all students: in New York City we have selective schools that enroll students based on exams or auditions and limit the number of students they can enroll. Similarly, school buildings have physical limits on the number of students they can hold. It is the district that has a moral and legal obligation to educate all students, not individual schools. Many districts use a portfolio approach to meet the various needs of their students, including neighborhood or zone schools, magnet or exam schools, specialized schools for students with disabilities, vocational schools, and charter schools. These are all public schools.

No school should “counsel out” a student without good reason, but schools do have a moral responsibility to help students find the best setting for their education. A school that did not make a parent with an autistic child aware of specialized programs that better meet that child’s needs is as reprehensible as a school that counsels a poorly performing student to find another school just to juice their own test scores. And remember, with special education it is the district’s Committee on Special Education that decides whether a zone or charter school is the appropriate setting for a student. In many cases, the CSE will determine that neither a zone or charter school is appropriate, and place them in a District 75 school. Again, it is the district that must serve all students, not every individual school. And you are completely wrong about English language learners: charter schools must make a good faith effort to enroll these students and serve them once enrolled.

Finally, charter schools are in fact subject to public oversight, both by their authorizer and the State Department of Education. They are subject to regular compliance monitoring, evaluation visits, reporting requirements, independent financial audits, federal education laws, not just the regular process of having their charter contracts reviewed and renewed.

Clearly, charter schools operate in ways very different from district schools: their accountability structures are different and they operate under different regulations. But they are both public schools.

Gideon already has the definitive answer.  But to respond to this in particular:

The executives of charter management organizations are not accountable to the government for their jobs.

Have you ever been involved in a charter school hearing before a state board of education?  

IDEA guarantees my autistic son and special education students Free and Appropriate Public Education.  It is indeed reprehensible to deny these children their rights and it is also illegal.  If going to his home school to make neighborhood friends with whom to model/practice socialization skills is the most appropriate education, how can the home school–whether a charter or traditional public school–turn him away?  

This piece provides an overly simplified view, and all I learned is that the author has a clear disdain for charter schools. I’d like to know why you think this distinction is so important anyway. The rules are the rules, and Gideon stated those quite clearly. Isn’t it more important for people to actually understand the details of charter creation and management, all of which your article glossed over.

Mr. Buck,

What elected official or (his/her) appointee can fire the head of Achievement First? How about the head of KIPP?

How are these people any more responsible to elected officials for their jobs than the head of Boeing, Blackwater (formerly) or anyone else with a government contract?

Having to testify? Yeah, that can be a huge hassle. But who can fire them from their organizations?

What’s an Irish Setter? Certainly not a dog with a brogue.
What’s a California roll? Big hint, we’re not defining the words individually. In a set phrase the meaning that belongs to the combination of words cannot be reconstructed by first taking the meaning of each word alone. But that’s what charter advocates (and Gotham Schools) often do. A “public school” is a school in the United States that is run by the local government and enrolls all or is open to all of the local population of children. It is not simply a “school” which is “public.” Gideon’s strange quote marks around “public” tell the whole story.

Mr. Hoffman: Achievement First and KIPP schools, as well as all other charter schools, are accountable to their board of trustees, which in turn are accountable to their authorizer, which is appointed by elected officials. Charter schools that are affiliated with management companies are still run by boards of trustees that hire their management organizations to provide services to their schools. A board can just as easily fire its management company if it is not satisfied with the quality of service. It is the same as school districts that hire for-profit companies and non-profit organizations to provide services in their schools, such as food services, training for teachers, curriculum programs, etc. The management of those companies and organizations are not hired or fired by the district, nor would we expect them to be. We do expect the district to do its due diligence in hiring these service-providers, and the district should be held accountable for making good use of public funds.

Gideon,

1) How are seats on public universities’ boards filled? Are they not appointed by elected officials or their appointees? Otherwise, I think that there’s a real question about what it means for The College of William & Mary to be a “public school.” I certainly admit that I am questioning that designation. Certainly, there are ways in which it is less a “public school” than most charter schools (e.g. charging tuition). You are right. But I think that that is another discussion.

2) Who has the authority to remove charter trustees? Under what conditions? Is it only for violation of the contract (i.e. the charter) or can it be done or arbitrary reasons. For example, can the authorizer remove a board member because the charter school is not above average?

3) Putting aside the fact that many NYC schools serve far more than their designated capacities (of students) and that they can be forced to accept more students against the will of the local faculty/administration, I think that there are real questions about whether all NYC DOE schools really are “public schools.” I believe that those who think that charter schools are *not* public schools should think about their reasoning and how it might apply to other publicly-financed schools. I think that there is a decent argument that exam schools are NOT public schools, though I am not quite convinced. However, I would like to point out that my argument looks at public schools as a group — as districts — and *not* as individual schools. In most of the country, students are assigned to schools strictly based on geography. In those districts where they do not, the district still has a responsibility to educate every child. We talk about “The Public Schools.” If charter schools are not part of districts (1) let’s concede that we are NOT talking about “in-district charter schools,” and 2) let’s acknowledge that the very definition of charter schools was originally and still tends to be publicly financed schools that are not part of school districts), then it seems almost tautological for me to point out that they should not be grouped in with the various sorts of in-district schools.

4) Again, districts have a moral and legal obligation to ensure that all students are placed. I am not looking at individual “public schools,” as the very definition of charter schools points to the importance of the being part of a district or not. I think we agree that my argument requires looks at traditional public schools as districts, rather than as individual schools. I am ok with that. I do not think that it weakens my argument at all.

5) Please tell me more about all this compliance monitoring. What actions may the monitors take? And why does that make them public schools? Meat packing plants are subject to inspection, too. That doesn’t makes them public. And which federal education laws must charter schools obey? Does IDEA apply to them? Title IX? ESEA/NCLB?

I like Alex’s positive description of charter schools:

“They are publicly financed schools that are run by private – usually nonprofit – organizations. Sometimes they are independent, and sometimes they are part of larger charter school organizations or chains.”

I would add to that description that charter schools are subject to significant government oversight, far beyond most private enterprises.  Of course, we can argue about the sufficiency (or excessiveness) of that oversight.

I leave the public vs private label wars to others (for now!).  

Jonathan,

Gideon is responding in good faith. He is no simply relying on facile arguments based on where quotation marks go. He has responded to my arguments thoughtfully and truly tried to engage with the ideas I have presented.

He has tried to present challenges to the quasi-definition that I have offered. Though we disagree, I do not feel that he has ignored me or is ducking any tough questions.

Gideon,

Perhaps you can educate me, here.

When Ms. Moskovitz gets or has gotten a new charter school, what is her relationship to that school? Who has the authority sever her organization’s ties to that school if the schools has not mishandled money, violated and laws and is performing at the level of an average school?

Jonathan: Your definition of public school leaves out regional schools, selective schools such as Stuyvesant or Bronx Science, magnet schools, schools serving the children of people in the military, vocational schools, schools for students with disabilities, etc. I’d say one of the things that makes all of these public schools is that they are publicly funded and do not charge tuition.

Actually, Ms. Moskowitz doesn’t technically run the schools. Each of the Harlem Success school’s has a board of trustees that holds the charter and each board can sever the school’s relationship with her management organization if it is not satisfied with the level of service she and her organization are providing. I assume they have a contract that spells out the terms of their relationship. Some boards hire a management organization to do select functions like finance and HR, others hire a management organization to run their entire school, from selecting the principal to developing the curriculum to training the teachers. The more important question to ask is how are the boards holding Ms. Moskowitz accountable for running their schools.

Mr. Hoffman: Responding to your comments a few links up the thread that weren’t there when I wrote the above.

1. I’m not sure how all public university boards are appointed, but believe you are right that they are usually appointed by elected officials. SUNY is such a board, overseeing many campuses across the state, and is also a charter school authorizer.

2. I think charter boards usually have nominating committees and the standing board approves new members with some sort of oversight or permission by their authorizer. I also think board members usually have to complete conflict of interest checks. But don’t quote me on any of this, and I think a lot varies by state and authorizer. I know there are sometimes board members who also work for the school or management organization, i.e., principals or teacher reps who sit on the board, but I think they have to recuse themselves from certain issues. My big question is how independent is the board from the management organization/company, i.e., did they pick a bunch of board members who will rubber stamp their decisions rather than hold them accountable for meeting their students’ needs.

3. The school/district distinction is complicated. We hear all the time of charter schools not matching the demographics of their district, e.g. having more minority students or fewer students with disabilities or ELLs. However, if you look at the individual schools in that district, the demographics often vary widely and you find individual schools that have even more black students or fewer special needs students than the charter school. So those averages can mask a lot of variation and I don’t always think it fair to think of the schools as a group. Whether charter schools are part of the district is a fascinating question: the portfolio approach suggests they are one part of the public school system, providing choice for parents and meeting different types of needs. In this sense it makes sense for the district to provide them with space in its building, encourage their growth through authorizing, etc. On the other hand, they are part of a different accountability structure, not reporting to the district but to an outside authorizer. This also fits with the view that the purpose of charter schools is to provide competition to the existing district schools to drive improvement.

5. I’m not an education lawyer, so don’t quote me, but I believe that charter schools must adhere to all federal education laws, definitely including IDEA. They also have to adhere to most state health and safety laws/regs, and their students must participate in state assessment programs. In NY most charter teachers also have to be certified, though I know some other states do not require this. New York charter law also has some requirements regarding collective bargaining: if a district school converts to charter school it retains collective bargaining, and any charter that has more than 250 kids in the first two years I think it part of the district’s collective bargaining.

As for monitoring, State Department of Education does regular compliance monitoring, both school inspection visits and document reviews. Schools have to submit annual reports, independent audits, and have many of the same reporting requirements as all other public schools, e.g., student demographics, violent incidents, lunch numbers, etc. In addition, charter authorizers conduct regular school evaluations (SUNY’s website has a lot of reports) and charter schools have to go through a renewal process every 5 years. Charter schools are subject to NCLB requirements, and can be put on probation or SURR lists. And an authorizer can revoke a charter at any time for a material breach of the charter.

The Charter Movement, if I can capitalize that, is, in fact, being facile with its use of language. Nothing personal about Mr. Gideon, but he has adopted their arguments, and with them, their language.

And the Charter Movement’s entire trick in this regard has been to reduce “public” (notice the quote marks) to an adjective, and then to claim that it does not matter what “public” modifies, as long as it is related to schools, in some way.

I think this is one of the cleanest examples of amphiboly (logical fallacy depending on misconstrued modifiers) that I have ever encountered.

This grammatical sleight of hand is not Mr. Gideon’s. He may not realize that he has adopted it. But his quote marks show quite clearly that he has.

“I’d say one of the things that makes all of these public schools is that they are publicly funded and do not charge tuition.”

Gideon, this definition seems to rest on looking at charter schools and asking, how can we define “public schools” to include charter schools?

I see no harm in calling charter schools what they are: privately operated, publicly funded schools, some run for profit, some run not-for-profit, that are open to all for enrollment. (in theory only, on that last part).

Jonathan,

I see your point about the word games (and thanks for introducing me to “amphiboly”!).  I favor the longer definitions, but I would change “some run for profit, some run not-for-profit” to “generally non-profit”.  I think your definition might mislead people about the current typical form of a charter school.  

Also, just as some charter supporters might have marketing goals in mind with the use of the word “public”, many anti-charter folk seem to use the word “private” to provoke images of Walmart. 

I don’t have a problem with that, Ken. In other states, though, the balance is different.

And I also agree, I wouldn’t call charters private, either. They are a hybrid.

As a parent of an elementary school child, who attends a wonderful “traditional” public school, and who has also gone through private and charter school admission processes, there is no question in my mind that charter schools are public schools with many governmental restraints. Students in charter schools must take all the state tests that students in “traditional” public schools must take. Students in charter schools are admitted via lottery. So unlike private schools, which can carefully control the make-up of their classes, charter schools must accommodate all children who “win” the lottery, and who meet the residency requirements for the school. Classes in charter schools that I have seen are made up of children of all abilities, races, and income levels. Any parent who enters the lottery has a chance to enroll his/her child in the charter school. Although enrollment is not guaranteed, the limits are due to physical space or resources, not to any administrator deciding that one’s child is not qualified for admission. I think that Mr. Hoffman’s remarks are not accurate, and his comparisons to defense contractors offensive. I am grateful for the opportunities that charter schools provide to elevate and expand the educational options available for my child and for all children in their respective districts, and find them to be fully accountable to the public and government oversight.

Public schools take every child, over the counter registration, special Ed and Ells.

Charter schools? Nope. So they are not “public”.

I’m sorry I’m so late to this party because I’m enjoying reading this thread after, frankly, Alex, being a bit taken aback by your post.

It seems no one has conclusively defined “public school,” that is, in all its forms. Different respondents seem to be running around with different definitions in their heads.

With all the variables out there (do the families have to pay? how does admissions work? who gets to attend? what tests do they have to take? is the institution for profit?), many of which are not uniform within the DOE as noted above, it would seem the only safe definition would go back to the school’s origination. That is, only the state Board of Regents can authorize the creation of a public school. And charters are incorporated by the Regents, not by the Attorney General’s office, like all other nonprofits in the state (which causes us major headaches when we try to register with the charities bureau, for example, who want to treat us like any other nonprofit instead of a public school, or try to get state sales tax, because as a public school we are not eligible for the ST-119 form, instead we have a letter from the Dept of Taxation and Finance that says, “this institution is a charter school, and public schools do not pay sales tax, therefore this institution does not pay sales tax…”).

Alex brought up one important variable: who can fire the school leader, or the board of trustees? Yes, if an elected official wanted it badly enough, the people controlling the authorizers could make this step happen. The governor appoints the SUNY trustees. He could pull all of the trustees who don’t want to threaten KS Charter School with closure if its board doesn’t fire Principal Kitchen Sink. The Board of Regents or the old Board of Education (now the Mayor) could force a school to fire its leader, which is sort of happening now with East New York Prep.

Darryl: stick to baseball. The Mets need you coaching in Port St. Lucie right now.

The article is wrong for many of the reasons mentioned above.

I’d at that charter school leaders can be removed in many states by elected officials. It sometimes takes one layer to get there.

In many states charter school employees are required to be in public employee retirement plans and required to comply with public employment law.

Just because charter schools do not fit the exact paradigm of traditional public schools does not mean that they don’t have many of the same rules and requirements of public entities.

Districts often counsel severe needs students out of traditional school buildings to other schools within the district. This is also true with many of their gifted students. Charter schools, if seen as one choice among many in a district, can easily justify counseling severe needs students into other schools just like a magnet school in a district would. In general, charter schools do have to take every student that comes through its doors. This argument is one of the worst arguments I’ve ever seen. Many magnet schools are extremely proud of their reputations, but they are usually even less diverse than most charter schools in both racial mix and service to special needs students. I guess that magnet schools are not public schools (or shouldn’t be). The top high schools in the country are all magnet schools. How did they get that way? Not by serving special needs students.

Having been a CFO of a large charter school in Colorado, I know that there are many more ways that charter schools are like public schools than not.

If you think public schools don’t “counsel” out less desirable students….you need to catch a clue.

I have seen public schools with the need to protect their reputation as a high performing school come at the expense of serving english language learners, credit deficient and/or students with poor attendance. In many districts, local schools hold on to all students until a census date has passed (this is usually the date in which annual site budget dollars are allocated, usually dollars per student enrollments) when this date passes, these prestious schools counsel out their undesirable students to protect their test scores, their dropout rates, etc, etc. Once they get their funding they have no skin in the game to attract new enrollments as they don’t generally get more site funding after the census date. The central office will hoot and hollar about retaining all kids, but at the site level, it makes their jobs easier and they are generally not penalized for letting these kids move on to charters, continuation or simply drop out.

However, most charter schools need to enroll or they will not have the dollars to stay open. I am sure there are some charters that do in fact “skim” to have de facto private schools, I believe the great of many charters that need every enrollments to maintain their operations.

I’m certainly fascinated by the contention that high-performing public schools counsel out “undesirable” students like ELLs. As someone who teaches only ELLs, and as someone who sees newcomers tested and assigned to my classes all the time, I find that hard to believe. I work in a high-performing school, I’m active in my department, I see a lot of what goes on, and if we’re counseling out anyone, I’ve seen no evidence of it.

I’m certain you won’t find many ELLs at specialized schools like Stuyvesant, but I’ve seen no evidence our school, or schools like it, counsel out anyone whatsoever. In fact, our school has 2% alternate assessment kids, and specialized programs to help them.

Mr. Terrible Truth,

There’s a reason why some charter proponents are so eager to claim the title “public school.” Clearly, we all feel that there’s some moral value to being a “public school.”

Those who say that some district schools counsel out some students, or are unwilling to serve all the students for which they are responsible, point to an important point. So-called public schools who engage in this kind of activity lose something important when they do that: moral legitimacy. That’s the same moral legitimacy that that so many others seek to claim, a moral legitimacy that clearly should not be taken for granted.

QueensParent,

With a little research I found (with help from EdWeek’s Mark Walsh) a federal court case that ruled that even in states whose charter laws declare charter schools to be public schools that they are not government actors, that they are not an arm of the state.

What does it mean, I ask you, for school to be a public school if it is NOT a state actor? Nearly 30 years ago, the federal courts ruled that receipt of public funds does not a state actor make, specifically in the context of schools (RENDELL-BAKER v. KOHN, 457 U.S. 830 (1982)). This year, they ruled Caviness v. Horizon Community Learning Center) that they kind of declaration your point to lacks the meaningful power you ascribe to it.

A great piece and very illuminating comments. To us, the issue is not whether charter schools are public or private. It also isn’t whether charters serve their students well (some do, some don’t — just like traditional public schools). The issue is whether charters ultimately will improve the overall quality of American public education — and if they do improve it, will they do so without compromising the cohesiveness of our society.

CityPragmatist,

Well, there was a model offered, that charter schools would be little experiments/centers of innovation and the knowledge gained would then be transferred back to traditional public schools. There is little evidence that this has occurred, and no one can seriously claim that it has happened to the extent envisioned.

In fact, rather few are even arguing anymore that charter schools will improve traditional public schools. Rather, most charter proponents argue that charter schools are or will be superior to traditional public schools.

How does that fit in with your preferred issue?

“Well, there was a model offered, that charter schools would be little experiments/centers of innovation and the knowledge gained would then be transferred back to traditional public schools. There is little evidence that this has occurred, and no one can seriously claim that it has happened to the extent envisioned. ”

Well, this isn’t because there aren’t charter schools (such as KIPP or Core Knowledge schools) doing very good things. So is your point that not enough traditional public schools are bothering to learn from success?

Alex: Rick Hess, education guru at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a piece criticizing folks on both sides of the choice/accountability debate. Hess faults both Arne Duncan and Diane Ravitch for what he says is their failure to understand that choice creates competition, and competition energizes and “incentivizes” creative improvement — on both sides. Hess is speaking for one of the key conservative think tanks supporting the charter school movement.

Look at the previous two comments.

Hess points out that we are talking about competition here, and Mr. Buck suggests that the blame for lack of knowledge transfer is on traditional public schools. I would argue that in parallel or equivalent situations in other industries, there would be no more knowledge transfer than we see here. That is, it is not the that traditional public school are not “bothering to learn,” but rather that the situation/dynamic is not one that is conducive to knowledge transfer between these two groups or organizations.

I would also question the degree to which “lessons” from KIPP or Core Knowledge are applicable to traditional public schools, as the students bodies are inherently different — if only because these sorts of charter schools require parents to opt for something different.

I would challenge Hess to show evidence that competition results in substantive improvement in education. It is not necessarily the case universally, though he suggests it is. Competition is not magic, and I would would argue (mind you, this is WAY off topic), the the kind of competition we see in the private for-profit sector (where winning can be measured in profits and thereby translate to personal gain for individual workers, and customers, too) might not exist in not-for profit, public and/governments services.

I would also question the degree to which “lessons” from KIPP or Core Knowledge are applicable to traditional public schools, as the students bodies are inherently different — if only because these sorts of charter schools require parents to opt for something different.

That’s just defining the issue such that no school can ever learn anything from anywhere else. Anyway, how does requiring parents to opt for a different school have anything whatsoever to do with the issue here? Are you really suggesting that more intense work (KIPP) or a richer curriculum (Core Knowledge) will affect a student only if there’s a piece of paper in a drawer somewhere (the parents’ transfer form)? On what theory of the human brain are you basing that assumption?

Mr. Buck,

Let me say again, this is off topic.

But to answer your questions: To the extent that KIPP and Core Knowledge produce better outcomes than traditional public schools, we still do not know why that happens. We can point to any number of distinctions, but we do not know which ones make a difference.

We DO know that that things that are entirely outside the school’s control have an impact. We DO know that peers have an impact. It is intuitive that teacher variation has an impact, but because students are not randomly assigned to teachers, it has been hard to prove that. There is a widespread that curriculum has an impact, but I’ve not seen curriculum-independent tests showing that (e.g. NAEP).

So, I am suggesting that some of the KIPP’s and Core Knowledge’s success (such as it is) stems from home effects. I am suggesting that some of it is from peers effects (which brings a student’s peer’s homes into the equation for that student).

To what degree are these sorts of schools successful because they have smarter teachers? To what degree because they have harder working teachers? To what degree the contract that KIPP schools have families sign? Those are just SOME of the differences between these schools and traditional public schools.

It is a big complicated question, and we simply do not know how much is do to home effects, peer effects, staffing or other school-controlled factors.

And THEN we get to my real point: interactions. My elementary school program and my brother’s elementary school program both had good curricula, and both had good teachers. But neither would work for the other’s population. The curriculum and pedagogy that my sister needed to be successful in high school was different than what I needed once I was in high school. And those differences come from just one family.

KIPP does NOT claim that its approach will work with all students. It only claims that its approach works with the kids it has. And KIPP would, not doubt, refute the suggestion that the one salient difference between KIPP and traditional public schools is the intensity of the work. It is a very well developed approach with many components. But no one knows which are the key pieces, or which pieces require others to work properly.

So, it is not at all clear — at least to those of use who are willing to take a More Thoughtful approach — what lessons we CAN take from successful charter schools, let alone how to apply them.

Mr. Buck,

You asked “Can schools learn from other schools, if every school is at least a bit different?” Right?

That is an EXCELLENT question, one that people who study education and organizations think about A LOT. Or rather, generally we think that there ARE things to learn, but figuring out what they are is not easy. Best practices rarely translate, so the challenge becomes identifying the principles that underlie best practices and what is needed to implement those principles in other contexts. That is if they can be applied at all.

This American Life just released an EXCELLENT podcast on what happened the NUMMI plant (perhaps the most studied plant across bussiness and management programs through the last 10+ year). It looks at precisely these issues, though not in an educational context. It’s worth listening to. I know that I learned a lot.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi

(NUMMI was an automotive plant jointly run by Toyota and GM, set up 25 years ago. The goal was to raise the quality of GM cars while teaching Toyata a bit about how to operate in the USA. The hour long podcast looks at how it worked in the first place, and why GM was unable to transfer lessons learned there to other plant. That is PRECISELY what Mr. Buck is talking about, the issue of how to transfer practices or principles from one facility to another.)

Mr. Buck:

Indulge me for a moment. Share your reaction to the assertion I attribute to Rick Hess: that school choice begets competition, and competition stimulates improvement.

Thanks.

Well, just so we’re clear that if traditional public schools aren’t learning from charter schools, it may not be the charter schools’ fault (as some seem to be implying when they make that criticism). I.e., if public schools aren’t trying the KIPP model, it could be for a variety of reasons (inability to figure out what to do, unwillingness to work hard, inability to get students to go along with it, etc.), but it certainly isn’t KIPP’s fault.

CityPragmatist — the scholarly literature on that point shows that 1) vouchers do stimulate public schools to improve modestly; and 2) charters may or may not do so (the studies here are more mixed — most are positive, but some find no effects and a couple of papers by Scott Imberman and Yongmei Ni even find negative effects). This isn’t all that surprising — vouchers are more of a competitive threat, whereas charters remain heavily regulated and very much under the thumb of their competitors (often having to seek approval from the very school districts with whom they’re competing).

Mr. Buck,

It may be the fault of the charter schools, it may be the fault of the traditional public schools, or it may be something endemic to the context or situation (i.e. neither of their “faults”).

I’ve not seen good research that shows vouchers lead to significant and meaningful improvements in valid measures. Most studies I have seen have failed to take into account other policy changes occurred simultaneously. Even the most optimistic reporting (as opposed to predictions) only show modest gains, certainly nothing in line with the sorts of mechanism that Dr. Hess has such faith in.

There are several randomized studies of vouchers that show at least some achievement gains.  In a randomized study, you don’t have to worry about other simultaneous developments, because those would presumably affect the treatment and control group equally.  

Alex, great piece.

Perhaps you can do a follow up about charter schools that are runned by for profit companies.

I haven’t seen that come up in any of the discussions here and I would by fascinated to see how the pro charter people argue that a for profit charter school should still be recognized as a public school.

There seems to be many for profits in New York City. I would like to see a state law against it. I’d like to know who is getting wealthy under the guise of educating children and at the tax payer’s expense. Certainly Eva Moscowitz is. Perhaps Malcom Smith too. What about other elected officials? What about Geoffrey Canada?

Sigh, I hope this is an early April Fool’s Day joke, Mustafa. You must know by now by reading on this site that all charter schools in New York State are required to be not-for-profit. That’s required, as in by NYS Education Law, you know, the law that creates public schools?

Not-for-profit charter schools, like districts, can choose to contract with for-profit institutions for services. That’s not the same thing as being a “for-profit” school.

KS,

I think it must be a distinction too fine for some of us to grasp. On January 19th, a story in Edwize maintained that Victory Schools, a for-profit charter management company, was “sucking up 25¢ of every public funding dollar that should go to the students of Merrick Academy.” It also said “Legislation proposed by State Senate leader John Sampson and State Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver would combine an increase on the cap with a prohibition of for profit involvement in charter schools…”

Are these statements factually incorrect?

If not, perhaps the issue is entirely one of semantics, or perhaps there’s something I missed, but I think Mustafa’s comment merits a more serious response in either case.

I posted a follow piece this week, and the conversation has shifted to that thread. You might want to read those comments.

Kitchensink, that’s not the same thing? Maybe in your mind, not mind?

Now that you tried to pick apart my rhetoric, address the greater issue I mentioned (that you conveinently sidestepped); how in the charter school movement certain people are getting wealthy under the guise of educating children and on the taxpayer’s dime.

Mustafa,

I think that KS (KitchenSink) is making an important point, and one that I tried to make, too. The legal and tax status of these organizations do not get to your point here, and therefore this is points to the kind of issue that must be addressed individually, rather than with broad regulation and legislation.

KS, as I understand it, has been quite critical of those who allude to (unless I am confusing KS with someone else). S/he doesn’t disagree that this can be an issue. However, s/he would say that it is not necessarily and issue, and that therefore it is not endemic to charter schools. S/he might even go on to that traditional public schools are similarly allowed to contract without outside vendors — even not-for-profits — through which some people get wealthy, too. (Is that right, KS?)

I would ask both of you, however, what we might do about this. As I wrote above, this is one example of why arbitrary democratic oversight is so important. We cannot anticipate all the issues that might pop up, but if objectionable actions do not violate the contract or charter the schools has with the authorizing authority, what should be done? Is this inability to deal with objectionable matters that don’t necessarily rise to the point of closing down a charter school (and thereby hurting its students, even if only because schools transitions tend to be bad for kids) a nail in the coffin for the charter approach? Can the charter schools model be altered enough to correct this without destroying the very independence that is supposed to be at the heart of their success?

I think that the “people getting wealthy” is a relatively minor one, but I worry that it is just the tip of the iceberg.

What say you, KitchenSink?

Good argument! In my mind, you have more than adequately proved your point. Charter schools are not public schools.

how in the charter school movement certain people are getting wealthy under the guise of educating children and on the taxpayer’s dime.

How is this any different (except in being a much smaller phenomenon) from the fact that many people within the public school system are getting wealthy under the guise of educating children? See, e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20  

Here’s the whole link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012902883.html

Mr. Buck,

I’ve long thought about how much district officials should make, and I have trouble coming up with an answer.

I went to high school in the 1980′s, in a district with 120,000 students. Given that many students to be responsible for, how much SHOULD the super have earned in a year? And how much should should four “Area Superintendents” have earned?

How does that compare to how much the head of a CMO that supports schools with a total of 3000 students earn? Should he earn 40x more? 10x more? Twice as much?

Is a total compensation package valued at $400 or $500,000 for the head of a district educating over 100,000 crazy? What about a district of over $200,000?

Mr. Hoffman,

I find this post very interesting, given that I am in the midst of a long term legal research project regarding exactly this point. Clearly the law is not relevant for all of your arguments, as I think you are also trying to draw a functional distinction, but I would like to point out that you have selectively mentioned two cases in which the courts have held that private or charter schools are not public (legally, state actors). In fact, there are many cases on the subject and quite a few of them find consistently that as a threshold matter, charter schools are state actors for the purposes of the particular claim that is brought forward. Interestingly, in cases where charter schools do accept IDEA funding, they have been found to be state actors for the purposes claims brought forth by parents of special education students whose IEPs were not being met. (Irene v. Philadelphia Academy Charter Schools). Likewise, in Scaggs v. New York Department of Education, the court in the Western District of New York found that a charter school was a state actor for the purposes of an educational adequacy claim. It is, in my opinion, an open question as to whether the courts have actually properly applied the legal precedent in this area, but I think that most scholars would tell you that the weight of the law falls on the side of charter schools as state actors, at least for the purposes of many of the issues and concerns that you raise. The one area in which I believe it is fairly clear that they are not state actors is with regards to dismissal of teachers who bring claims regarding due process violations. Where state law explicitly exempts charter schools from certain regulations and procedural requirements, charter schools have not been found to be state actors. In many states, the purported purpose of charter school enabling legislation is to free the schools from some of the burdensome bureaucracy that stymies reform in the “TPS,” which suggests that certainly in this realm, charter schools are not intended to be held to same requirements as their TPS counterparts.

If you (or others) are interested, I am happy to share the rest of my research with you. It is still a work in progress, and my point of entry is slightly different than yours, but it may still be useful or relevant to your discussion.

Ms. Simon,

I think that the legal question is not easily settled. My point was that it is not as simple as saying that charter schools are public schools because some legislatures say that they are. Generally, I would say that charter schools are like public schools in some ways, and unlike them in others.

On the particulars of the due process rights with regard to employment, I think you are mistaken, however. As the kind of due process rights at stake in those cases flow from the US Constitution — at least as far as I understand it — state laws cannot free charter schools from them. If the federal courts are ruling that charter schools are not state actors for the purpose of employment, that’s not because of the elements of charter legislation that frees them from various state regulations.

Do you have a different understanding?

More to the point, however, I do not think that this is simply a legal question — even though I find legal questions fascinating.

Due process-employment law = due process for those accused of a crime? I didn’t realize the former had anything other than a conceptual relationship to the latter.

If I’m right, Alexander, you’re sounding like you are making more and more of a stretch to fit the facts to your argument.

KitchenSink,

Have you ever studied constitutional law? Do you know of what you speak/write?

This is not about criminal due process. It’s a different idea, though related. This comes from the takings clause, in the form of what (as I recall) is known as “new property rights.” The fifth amendment says that the government cannot take your life, liberty or property without due process of law.

At some point (Warren court, probably), the idea that there are things that are analogous to property, in the sense that they have value (I don’t actually recall the whole argument, so I am trying to reconstruct it), and therefore the government should not take them, either, without due process. And employment — by the government, of course — is one of those things.

This does not mean that the due process burden for property is as great as that for liberty. But anyone who has even studied school law knows that there are different standards for due process for different school punishments, none of which rise to the level of criminal due process.

The issue at hand is whether or not charter school employees are employed by the state or not. We know that traditional public school employees ARE. The highest court to have ruled on this says that charter school employees are NOT. This means that, for at least some purposes, charter schools are NOT arms of the state.

In fact, I have not needed to stretch any facts or ignore any arguments to make my points. So, I ask, KitchenSink, can you please explain which facts you think I am stretching?

My understanding of school case law – admittedly limited as, like I said, I am not a scholar and I have only practical experience – tells me that there is no constitutional standard protecting teachers as public school employees. The relevant legal arguments fall under employment law and contracts.

Can someone who knows more than I do tell us, if the NYC teachers all decided to disband the UFT, and BloomKlein decided to offer only at-will employment, would there be a constitutional barrier to doing so for want of due process?

KitchenSink,

1) I already did.

2) I’ll have an expert I know REALLY well tell you, too.

KitchenSink,

Why do you think public school teachers have contracts in states where they lack collective bargaining rights (i.e. TC, GA, SC, NC, VA)? It’s because at-will employment as we know it with private employment does not exist in public employment.

5th amendment (takings and due process), and then the 14th (to apply those protections to the states).

As Mr. Hoffman knows, it can get quite complicated, but in this he is generally correct:

Public employees, even those who are not covered by collective bargaining agreements, have greater due process protections than at-will employees of private employers. Public employees have civil liberties and property interests in their jobs. This includes traditional public school employees. Due process includes a whole host of rights that private employees do not enjoy, and may include notice of disciplinary action and hearing and appeal rights.

Quite simply, the government is not, and cannot behave like, a private employer. At a minimum, the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution limit state action and provide protections from the government. These limitations don’t apply to private employers.

Thanks – I stand corrected.

Thanks Devjani!

This is an area I am interested in learning more about.  I think you might be suggesting two things:
1. There is no such thing as a public employee that is at-will, anywhere in the United States.
2. At-will employment is accepted to be federally unconstitutional for public employees, anywhere in the United States.

Do I have this correct?  Could you refer me to online (if available) sources that might help to explain these matters (or to explain the correct interpretation of what you tried to explain to us)?

Ken,

My wife is a bit busy, and only chimed in because I asked her to back me up on this point. Gotham School’s cannot afford her rates, but if you want to hire her yourself, I’m sure something could be worked out.

I, however, am well-versed in this area, both due to my formal education, to my countless hours talking with about her work, and my innumerable questions about her areas of expertise. So, here are answers to your question.

No, there is no such thing as an at-will public employee, at least not in the sense that we understand it in the private sector. This does NOT mean that public employees must be unionized or have a contract — and I imagine that most public employees are not. Rather, it means that even without a contract, they have rights that at-will private sector employees do not.

The Federal constitution constitution applies the relevant amendments to the to the states through the 14th amendment, and local government legally gets it authority from those state governments. This means that these protections apply to federal, state and local government. So, that’s everywhere in the USA.

But I think that everyone might be misunderstanding what constitutes due process. In this case, it can be as little as notice of the reasons for the termination and a fair hearing where the decision may be contested. It’s not about rights to lawyers, appeals processes, or big formal things. The process that is due is pretty minor. In fact, these are practices that most (all?) private employers could easily put in place without really altering how they do work. Tell them why they are fired, and give them a real chance to respond (with the real possibility that their response could convince you otherwise). How hard is that?

Private employers can fire at-will employees with no notice and hearing. “Clear out your desk. Now. No discussion.” Legally, they have the right to do that, even if it is bad management. The public sector cannot do that *THAT* easily. That doesn’t mean that it is very for them to fire employees, just that there is a little bit of process to be had.

*********************

The reason why public school teachers in non-collective bargaining states have contracts is to protect the school districts, rather than the teachers (at least as I understand it).

The contracts do not give the teachers MORE rights, but rather serve to curtail those property rights. For example, if you have a contract and the contract is not renewed, you’ve got nothing. You do NOT have a property right to renewing a contract, even with the government. In the absence of tenure — and that DOES bestow a property right — expiration of the contract curtails the property interest. Moreover, the contact may lay out exactly how the due process will work, so that there is no misunderstanding.

So, you want to fire a non-tenured public school teacher? Over the summer, simply don’t renew their contracts. Easy. During the year? Tell them why and have a little formal hearing.

You’ve heard of “civil service protections,” right? They are largely based on this kind of thing.

And this is what was contested in Arizona. The 9th circuit ruled that charter school employees do NOT have this kind of due process because charter schools are NOT arms of the state — at least for these purposes. That is, for these purposes charter schools are private actors.

************************

You and I have had this discussion before, and you expressed a desire for this sort of outcome. You said that you do NOT want charter schools to have the burdens of being state actors. In fact, I believe that we discussed this larger idea in this particular context (i.e. employment). This 9th circuit case came out since that offline conversation.

I pointed out in that conversation that the big burden that unions place on employers is that they ensure that employees actually know their rights and have someone to argue for their rights. Employers cannot run roughshod over employers whom either do not know their rights or are not willing to stand up for them.

(Yes, there can be other issues, certainly. But this is the universal one, and the one at the heart of union-management tensions.)

Ken,

There is not a a lot of simple and easily available resources for you on this. Look up “ACLU briefing paper 12″ without the quotes. There’s a little there.

However, this stuff is really complicated. That’s why lawyers spend 3 years in law school and then need many more years of specialized experience in particular branches of law. That is why can charge so much money. Understanding this stuff requires real expertise. These are embedded in other things with implications from over there for this spot here and and and…

KitchenSink & Ken,

None of this means that public employees MUST have contracts. Public employees do not have to have contracts, but that does not mean that they are at-will in exactly the same way that private employees can be at-will.

Thanks Alex.

I’ve started (finally!) to study teacher contract issues in Texas and what I have heard so far is that it is difficult to terminate a public school teacher and that unions are active in the state and exercise influence via school board and legislative elections.  Texas does not have collective bargaining, but it seems that unions have been successful in getting analogous (but weaker) results to what we see in NY via the legislative process.

Separately, I would love to see web links that address the at-will issues for public employees if anyone comes across them.  The little I have found seems to imply that there are public employees that are at-will (I searched “at-will public sector employees”), but I haven’t found anything great.

2) Yes, there are something akin to at-will employees in the public sector, in that there are employees without contracts. But, as I keep saying, they have rights that protect them from government action that private employees do NOT with regard to their employers actions. And so, at-will employment does not exist in the public sector as we know it in the private sector.

1) Unions lobby governments, just like so many other groups do. And the rights of free speech and free association mean that such unions will always exist. However, Texas teachers do not have traditional labor unions because teacher are barred from collective bargaining in that state. You should not think of those unions (TX, GA, SC, NC, VA) as being like what we see in other states. Rather, they are pure professional associations. Think of the ABA, the AMA and other professional organizations, but with many more workers.

As for union involvement in local elections? Think of home builder’s associations, chambers of commerce and all the other groups who get involved, too. Trade groups, industry groups, professional associations and all the rest. This is the nature of American democracy and elections. There is nothing particularly nefarious or unusual about teacher union involvement in elections.

Aside from the very important distinction of no collective bargaining, the Texas AFT sounds a lot like a union.  My sense is that many people up here in NY try to make it sound like unions don’t exist in states like Texas.  

This is from tx.aft.org:

What is Texas AFT? Texas AFT is a statewide organization that exists to serve its members and local unions, also called “local units” or “affiliates.” Texas AFT currently has 58,000 members and growing.When you join a local union—for example, the Houston Federation of Teachers in Houston ISD, or Amarillo AFT for Amarillo ISD—you are automatically a member in the statewide organization of Texas AFT and our national organization, the American Federation of Teachers, based in Washington, DC.

Here’s a bit more from the Texas AFT website.  Sounds familiar.  :)

What does my local union do? Texas AFT believes that the local union is the key to promoting the interests of educational employees. Local school boards hire and fire, promulgate work rules, decide local pay raises, and implement initiatives that help or hurt employees on campuses. We as Texas AFT members have the greatest power over school boards if we are organized to make our voices heard at the board level and at the ballot box during school-board elections.

Ken,

I’ve been sitting your last two comments for the past week (or so) because I have been trying to figure out what you might be getting at. Everything that I can think of is pretty paranoid and/or knee-jerk anti-union.

1) The most important trait of a labor union is the ability to engage in collective bargaining. Without that, the nature of the group and what it can do for its members is quite different. You’d have something like the ABA, the AMA, the AERA, or even PDK. Teachers unions as we know them in most of the country simple do NOT exist in Texas, for precisely this reason. When the union does not have a legal position representing teachers in their relationship with school districts, it becomes an entirely different sort of organization on virtually every substantive level.

2) Yes, many organizations have a structure by which being a member of a local chapter gives members is the larger organization. PDK works this way. The YMCA works this way, too. There’s the National Honors Society, and I’ll be that the Shriners and the Kawanis work this way, too. No, not all organizations work this way, but it is quite common and is hardly unique to teachers unions. It simply is an easy way to manage membership while recognizing that members have both local and wider concerns.

3) You seem to be implying that there is something nefarious about an organization urging its members to vote in local elections. Quite frankly, I am disgusted by that suggestion. If groups focused on influencing policy via the ballot box, as opposed to by donating money or running dirt filled ads on TV or radio, we’d likely all be better off.

4) Though outsiders often don’t realize it, education is managed VERY locally in this country. The federal role has been historically been very small, and still remains so. States have generally empowered local school districts — and their school boards — to manage virtually every aspect of school management. While I know that outsiders and structuralists think there is something wrong with focusing on “the ground” where things actually happen, but it simply shows that these organizations know how to focus their efforts. Frankly, this is what the Framers intended (i.e. the rich tradition of local control). There are other organizations that ALSO focus on local elections, even school board elections, too.

Thanks Alex.

My research on Texas is responsive to the interesting comments (made by many) like this one from last year:

“ Most importantly, some states do not even allow teach[er] union contracts (Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina & Virginia). If teachers unions were barriers to improving education and helping children, you would expect better schools in those states — and certainly more innovative school — compared to the rest of the nation. There is no evidence to support either of those outcomes.
So, what does this tell us about teacher unions? It tells us that they are not the problem that many make them out to be.”

As we have discussed, my concern is not with unions as a concept, but with the loss of flexibility created by some union contracts, e.g. the difficulty to terminate incompetent teachers.  (I know we have debated about flexibility before, but my thoughts here are not about whether I am right about that issue.)

My question for my sources in Texas was about issues like teacher termination that I find problematic in NYC.  I was told that these problems exist in Texas, that there are contracts for teachers with analogous terms, and that the main interest group that fights for these terms are organizations like the Texas AFT (and others depending on which part of Texas we are talking about).  I was told that, despite the lack of collective bargaining, these organizations try to influence policy via school board and state legislative elections.  

To be clear, I do NOT think these activities are inappropriate.  I fully support their right to advocate for what they believe in.  Rather, as someone that thinks they are advocating for things that are damaging to society, I would like for people to be aware of what is going on.  That’s my right, which I am pretty sure you support.  

Also, I think my small investigation suggests possible answers to the puzzle your question poses.  Two things to be clear:
1. I haven’t done much work on this.  I am, even more so than usual, in learning mode on this one.
2. Collective bargaining, by all accounts so far, makes a big difference in union dynamics.  I hear your point on this.

Whether there is collective bargaining or not, teachers’ unions are still a powerful force in school politics, just by being a concentrated interest group that is highly motivated to get involved, to vote in school elections, etc.  As a result, lots of the things that teachers’ unions would enshrine in a collective bargaining agreement in one state end up enshrined in the law in a non-collective bargaining state.  In Arkansas, for example, there is no collective bargaining.  But teacher tenure still exists . . . rather than being in a collective bargaining agreement, it is called “non-probationary status” under state law, and is protected as a property right of the teacher.  There is also a “Fair Dismissal Act,” which provides for due process and hearings for teachers before dismissal. 

Indeed, it’s even a myth that in the absence of collective bargaining, school districts don’t engage in contracts with teacher associations.  The Little Rock school district has a massive contract with the local teachers’ association there. See http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/People/Maranto/20090621_OpEd.pdf  

Just to prevent misreadings, I’m not saying that any of this is necessarily a bad thing. 

So very far off topic….

1) I wonder who could have written such a thing?

2) If your concern is/has been the loss of flexibility that you believe is created by some union contracts, your concerns should be alleviated by what you’ve learned in Texas. If there are not union contracts in Texas, and your sources report the same issues, then it’s pretty clear that union contracts are NOT the problem.

3) I’ve been saying on this site for quite some time that most of the things that people object to (e.g. the common salary scale, tenure) were NOT created by union contracts, and (in fact) they predate collective bargaining rights for teachers by decades. This simply should not be surprise, Ken.

4) As I’ve been pointing out, the basis for these termination procedures are the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. Before you go back to blaming teachers unions, you should make sure you know what is really going on. Just as people so often blame union contracts inappropriately, they inappropriately blame teachers unions even in the absence of union contracts. Teachers unions make a convenient scapegoat.

5) We’ve discussed your concerns about flexibility, before. But you still seem unwilling to explore the crisis in school leadership. You seem unwilling to look past the excuses you read/hear to see if they are real explanations or if they are scapegoating for their own failures.

I mean, look at the story of the day (i.e. the rubber rooms). The DOE and various outsiders have pointed to them as a major problem. But the DOE is the only one in a position to speed up that process — and thereby save gobs and gobs of money. But the union (and its contract) has been blamed for the rubber rooms and their the waste of resources.

Mr. Buck,

1) Is there a single state in which tenure laws postdate collective bargaining rights for teachers?

2) Is there a single state that lacks teacher tenure laws?

3) If there is no collective bargaining in Arkansas, how can a city have a contract with a union? What are you talking about? What do you think collective bargaining is?

There are five states that bar collective bargaining by teachers, and Arkansas is NOT one of them (as your own example proves). In case you haven’t been paying attention, TX, GA, SC, NC, VA.

Agreed about heading off topic, although this stuff is important enough to discuss when we both have the time and patience.

I agree that if there is no contract with a union in Texas, then the problem there can’t be literally a “union contract”.  My concern is with whatever rules, regulations, contracts, habits, customs, or otherwise creates a system that I believe doesn’t function as well as it could.  To the extent that those rules, regulations, etc. exist, I am curious to learn why that is the case.  In both NYC and Texas, my current hypothesis is that organized teacher groups are big influences in creating the rules, regulations, contracts, etc. that cause the problems that I am concerned with.

I would love to see links that explain the constitutional basis for termination procedures of the sort we are discussing.  It’s not an area I am familiar with.

If you are suggesting that the UFT is not greatly responsible for recent contracts in NYC that I strongly object to (rightly or wrongly), we will have to agree to disagree!

I agree with you that school leadership is an important area to study.  Don’t count me out on that one just yet!  I’ve done some work on this in the past and hope to do more in the near future.  As a matter of fact, I have been discussing that on another thread on GS over the past few days.  

1.  I don’t know and don’t see why it’s relevant. 

2.  Same. 

3.  Voluntarily.  What I should have said was that Arkansas does not prohibit all collective bargaining. At the same time, it is a right-to-work state — Amendment 34 to the state constitution says that no one can be penalized for refusing to join a labor union.  So whether a school district recognizes a labor union (as representing at least a bare majority of teachers) is completely optional on the district’s part (see Arkansas Code 6-17-202).  This is very different from states where collective bargaining is the norm. 

To me, the bottom-line issue is whether organized special interests are influencing policy in a manner that serves themselves but not society.  Precise use of the phrases like “union”, “collective bargaining”, “tenure”, and “right to work” are very important, but sometimes the complexity of these issues is used as a shell game to divert attention from the underlying questions.  Other times, legitimate interest in precision accomplishes the same distraction.  I hope we continue to strive for precision, but I hope we don’t lose sight of the underlying questions.   

Ken,

Research (look into Susan Moore Johnson’s work) has shown that it is not the contract but rather “past practices”, what you might mean by “custom,” that is responsible for the so-called “inflexibility.”

In fact, practice rarely resembles contracts, and both teachers and administrators cite contracts for things that have never appeared in any contract.

The thing is that there really are lots of people who do really do spend their lives studying this stuff. Perhaps you could talk with some of them, rather than pulling this stuff out of your….repertoire. There is a large existing research base, and there are trained professionals who would be happy to have further research funded.

As for the constitutional basis? The 5th and 14th amendments. Property interests in government jobs, a property right make all the stronger for tenure, and constitutional requirements for due process.

So, what constitutes due process? Well, it depends on the right in question and the value of the property.

What termination procedures do you have a problem with? In every field, even with at-will employment for private employees, proper documentation matters. In every sector, inaccurately positive evaluations in a personnel file creates problems. As I keep telling you, the difference with unions is that employees know their rights, and someone else is willing to step up to defend those rights. A lot of these procedures to which you object were put in because central offices did not trust school-based administrators to be able to properly document decisions without such procedures.

Thanks Alex,

If you come across any links that would help to explain the constitutional arguments that necessitate tenure, etc., I’ll try to fit them into my… repertoire.  

Mr. Buck,

1) You pretty clearly stated that you believe that teachers unions have/would put tenure in collective bargaining agreements. I was wondering what you basis for that claim would be.

2) Teachers in NYC don’t have to join the union. In fact, there are plenty of places where collective bargaining is required by law and teachers do not have to join the union.

3) There are, as I said, five states that actually ban collective bargaining by states. I wonder the % of teachers in the allowed-but-not-required states that are covered by a collective bargained contract. That is, what is the norm is such states?

“Teachers in NYC don’t have to join the union.”  That’s another interesting thing I’ve heard repeated several times recently.  My very-preliminary understanding from speaking to a couple of people:

1. It’s technically true.
2. By default, new teachers become union members.  They don’t need to do anything for this to happen.
3. Teachers need to proactively “opt out” of the union.
4. To do so, new teachers need to approach their union rep and request instruction on the process.  I’ve heard that this is an intimidating, perhaps intentionally intimidating, process.
5. All teachers have to pay significant union dues, regardless of whether they are members of the union, although I think you get a discount if you are not a member.
6. Therefore, overall, one has to have a strong dislike of the union and be willing to confront the union rep and go through a non-user-friendly process to exercise one’s right to “not join the union”.

Can anyone verify or correct these points?

Ken,

>To me, the bottom-line issue is whether organized special interests are influencing
>policy in a manner that serves themselves but not society.

This is almost always the case, Ken. I would argue that charter school proponents are one such example. (i.e. Tn the absence of significant knowledge transfer, charter schools do not benefit most students or most of the community, while they drain enormous amount of research, policy, legislative and blogging attention.)

There is no end of examples of how various special interests (with various degrees of organization) push for policies that serve themselves far more than society. To choose a random example, I would suggest the Ron Paul supports advocate changes that serve themselves — a small minority — at the clear expense of the rest of society. (Just a random example, right?)

So, the bottom line issue is NOT whether groups call for policies that serve their interests. The questions are more the cost of those policies, how those policies might fit into the larger issues that government and society faces, the amount of benefit that the group might get, the size of the group, etc..

More to the point — or at least the off-point point — I would have to ask you, “What policies are teachers unions calling for that do not actually serve society?” Surely, you don’t expect teachers unions to be responsible for the poor implementation of policies by others, do you?

>Precise use of the phrases like “union”, “collective bargaining”, “tenure”, and “right to
>work” are very important, but sometimes the complexity of these issues is used as a
>shell game to divert attention from the underlying questions. Other times, legitimate
>interest in precision accomplishes the same distraction. I hope we continue to strive
>for precision, but I hope we don’t lose sight of the underlying questions.

I agree that we should not lose sight of the underlying questions, but one cannot expect people who do not understand how the structures and dynamics really work to able to provide meaningful insight. Instead, as experience shows, we should expect scapegoating the propagation of myth and misunderstanding.

The education policy arena is full of people whose only experience and training is their own childhood and teenage experience. I would suggest that we see more advances in many other fields BECAUSE training, knowledge, experience and expertise are given more credit. The reactionary and just plain ignorant voices in this arena are a HUGE problem.

And so, if people who try to talk about how unions are to blame for problems in education don’t know the place and scope of collective bargaining or how tenure works, these are not mere technicalities. Rather, they are the real substance, and such problems reveal that these people simply are not equipped to comment intelligently on the very matters they might feel strongest.

Ken,

1-3) Yes, teachers in NYC public schools who do not want to be a member of the UFT must fill out a form to make that change.

4) How intimidating the process might be depends on the the local chapter leader.

5) No non-members pay any union dues. That would be illegal. They pay significantly lower fees to cover the relevant services that the union provides even non-members.

***********

Have you ever spoken with anyone who has gone through this process? I have worked with some, and discussed with them both their reasoning and their experiences of the process. For them, it was nothing like what you describe.

Alex,

Thanks for the info as always.  On teachers “joining the union”:

1. It sounds like “teachers don’t have to join the union” could be a somewhat misleading phrase.  Better might be “teachers can quit the union”.  (Better still would be adding the phrase “by contacting their chapter leader” to make clear the risk of intimidation.)  I’d speculate that the percentage of teachers in the union would be much lower if they had to “opt in” rather than “opt out”.  

2. I’d be curious to know how much the fees are and how much the dues are.

3. I’ve spoken to teachers that claim to know a bit about the process and who, in turn, have spoken to teachers that have gone through the process.  I’d love to chat with someone who has gone through the process and/or see a link on the DOE or UFT website that explains the process.
 
4. My main objection with regards to this matter would be statements that risk suggesting that teachers proactively join the union.  From what I know so far, that is simply not true.

When I started teaching, I had the impression – from the chapter rep at my school – that I would have to pay dues whether I joined the union or not. My chapter rep was extremely cordial, in fact jovial, and I never felt intimidated in any way. She explained, as I recall, that since the union negotiated our contract we automatically paid dues whether or not we were members. She might have suggested I forego my salary if I wasn’t interested in paying the dues! (And that trade made sense to me, since I understood that the union fought for our salary schedule and benefits over time.)

My thought process: I’m neither for nor against this union until I learn more; I’m paying the same thing anyway, so why not get the vote? I’m joining.

Mr. Hoffmann,

The current contract on the UFT’s website says, “The Board shall deduct from the wage or salary of employees in the bargaining unit who are not members of the UFT THE AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE DUES levied by the UFT and shall transmit the sum so deducted to the UFT, in accordance with Section 208(3)(b) of Article 14 of CSL.” See http://www.uft.org/member/contracts/teacher/article19/

Could you square this contractual provision with your statement that non-members “pay significantly lower fees to cover the relevant services that the union provides even non-members”? Thanks.

Mr. Hoffmann,

The current contract on the UFT’s website says, “The Board shall deduct from the wage or salary of employees in the bargaining unit who are not members of the UFT THE AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE DUES levied by the UFT and shall transmit the sum so deducted to the UFT, in accordance with Section 208(3)(b) of Article 14 of CSL.”

Could you square this contractual provision with your statement that non-members “pay significantly lower fees to cover the relevant services that the union provides even non-members”? Thanks.

In New York, a teacher is not required to be a union member, but must pay an “agency fee” or “agency shop fee” to pay for the negotiation and administration of the benefits they receive from working under a collective bargaining agreement. The fees are comparable to union dues.

As a result of a US Supreme Court decision, unions can not spend dues money on political activity; those funds must be raised through voluntary member contributions to the union’s political action committee, whose UFT acronym is COPE.

As for “right to work” laws, which are primarily in the former slave states of the South, they outlaw what’s known as a “closed shop,” in which it is impossible to be employed without being a union member (as is traditionally the case in the organized construction trades) and they do not require agency fees for employees who choose not to join the union.

In union parlance, these people are known as “free riders,” since they enjoy the benefits of working under a contract without paying for it.

Mr. Buck,

If that is actually what the contract says, and I have little reason to doubt your presentation, I clearly am mistaken on this particular point.

I find it hard to imagine that that has changed in the last ten years, so I must have confused the different fee with some other district I have worked in or researched. I don’t think that I would have confused the PAC contribution with the dues, though it is possible that those I have spoken have. But I would hope that I would caught that mistake myself.

So, I got that one wrong, Mr. Buck. Thank you for putting the right information out there, and bringing it to my attention.

Ken,

I think that you anti-union bias is shining through quite strongly here.

You are arguing that these factually accurate statement carrying the wrong…it’s not even an implication. You just think that there’s this aspect to it that you want to stress that is not included. Heck, it’s not even necessarily a factual aspect. (i.e. this “intimidating” thing is entire subjective and well could be as much a creation of the imagination of the teacher as the chapter leaders.) I don’t recall you ever having these kinds of concerns about the implications and connotations of language before.

The fact is that teachers do NOT have to join the union, but the default is for them to do so. Yes, they have to elect to change the default, but that is a tautology. The state of the default does not change whether or not they have to join the union.

As for the opt-in/opt out issue impacting membership rates? Well, I’d say that that’s true universally. Yes, defaults DO influence behavior, and there’s been a fair amount of research in this area recently. I think there was even a book called “Nudge” that explores some of this.

But seeing as teachers are automatically covered by the contract the local union negotiated, it seems to make sense that they should, by default, become members. I understand that you don’t agree, but you’ve never explained why the default should be otherwise.

Alex,

My concern is that people reading the phrase “Teachers in NYC don’t have to join the union” without any further qualification will get the wrong idea.  It’s similar to stating “Some states don’t even allow teacher union contracts” to suggest perhaps that teacher organizations don’t affect education policy in a material way.  Depending on context, these true statements can be misleading, whether or not that is the intention.  Randi Weingarten used both of these arguments in a recent debate that you might have seen.  In her case, I think her goal was to deceive.  Watching that debate might have heightened my concern about the unqualified use of these phrases.

I enjoyed the book Nudge, by the way.  I agree that it addresses some of these issues very well.

As Mr. Fiorillo well knows, UFT membership in New York’s public schools is above 99% because teachers have money taken out of their paychecks regardless of whether they sign the union card. These teachers’ choice, in the bizarre world of Mr. Fiorillo, consists of being forced to work according to same work rules as the UFT, locked into the seniority system for both pay and LIFO purposes. Some choice!

In a parallel, technically, an Iraqi could chose not to vote for the Ba’ath Party, who had a similar election percentage as the UFT has members. In reality, teachers in New York are stuck with the UFT and have absolutely no actual control over the terms of their contracts. Unity runs the show, shuts down any pretenders to their thrown or co-opts the weak reformists within the union.

The people who run on an anti-Unity platform, as Mr. Fiorillo knows first hand, have never won any measure of real power in the union and have no chance of gaining it under the current system.

Here is some real choices that teachers might consider:

1) Ability for teachers to opt out of the UFT, keep their union dues/shop fees in pocket.

2) Ability for teachers to negotiate their own salaries, dumping the salary scale and LIFO rules.

3) Ability for teachers to collectively bargain outside of the UFT, by creating their new unions which give teachers a real voice, not the faux “democratic unionism” of the Unity machine.

And for laughs, here’s a funny one that no one ever talks about–

4) Ability to be work as a professional, not a rules bound drone tied to an inflexible bureaucracy.

Tell the Truth

TTT,

You DO know that union members have the right to vote in union elections — a right that many members failure to exercise — without the threat of jail or death, right?

You DO know that the UFT cannot unilaterally give teachers freedom to negotiate their own salaries, and that the common salary scale predates collective bargaining my decades, right? I mean, you know that school districts originally imposed common salary scales in the absence of pressure from teachers to do so, right?

You DO know that it would be illegal (by federal law) for there to be competing unions in a given site — a law that exists to help employers as much as employees, right?

You DO know that there are many non-teaching professionals that there are not members of unions (e.g. nurses, airline pilots, etc.), right?

Or, maybe you don’t.

Ken,

Does you anti-union bias have no bounds?

What is the basis for your declaration that Ms. Weingarten was trying to deceive anyone? When has she ever said that teachers unions have no influence over education policy?

I understand that in complicated situations one can disagree about how much context is needed to really understand what is going on. But it truly sounds like any explanation that does not make clear that everything is entirely the fault of the evil unions will satisfy you.

Only a fool would believe that teachers unions has have much influence in states where collective bargaining is denied from teachers as they do in states where it is required. And, as you are no fool, I have to wonder how you could think that this comparison — one that union bashers almost never acknowledge in the first place — is the least bit misleading.

If you are speaking of the Intelligence Squared debate, I’ve got to say that the performance of the anti-charter folks was shameful. I have to conclude that they didn’t even try, as their arguments boiled down to “charter schools” and “Jaime Escalante,” neither of which actually supported their desired conclusion.

Alex,

When I’m given the choice of being a fool (which I thank you for discounting) or someone with unbounded anti-union bias, it is usually time for the next thread!  Of course, I don’t agree with your characterizations.  I encourage people to watch the Intelligence Squared Debate if they want to see what we are talking about:

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/dont-blame-teachers-unions-for-our-failing-schools/

Similarly, interested readers can read this thread to see if they understand my concerns with some of your statements.

Ken,

Oh, come on. They spend half the debate saying that unions’ lack of support for charter schools are both the reason and the proof that “unions are to blame for our failing schools,” as though our schools weren’t having issues before unions failed to support charter schools.

What could be more dishonest than that.

And then, they blame unions for driving Escalante out of the of the classroom, as though the change in administration (and his clashed with his new principal) has nothing to do with it.

Only those more interested in proving a pre-ordained conclusion than in the truth of the situation would advance such arguments, let alone fall for them.

Ken,

I’ve just gone through the transcript to scan through everything that Randi Weingarten said. I believe that these are the only two excerpt that relate to the lack of universal unionization. (Note, the second quote comes a bit later in the debate.) How is she being misleading? Am I missing something? Are you mistaken? Or are YOU being misleading?

“If teachers unions were to be blamed for failing schools, then we would assume that schools in less unionized states would outperform schools in more densely unionized states. So you’d assume that places like Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, who have relatively few unionized teachers would do much, much better. But that’s not the case. The states with the most densely unionized teachers, Massachusetts, New York, Maryland; they do the best. And the countries with the most densely unionized populations: Finland, Japan, they do the best. So what do we learn from that?”

“So ultimately, just like we did not say that teacher unions were the reason why Maryland or Massachusetts or New York were so successful — and by the way, that was just in quality counts from education week. We were not the ones that said that Finland or Japan were most successful. We’re just saying that those are the correlations.”

Hey Alex,

I have a problem with that first quote and I think the second one is back-tracking based on push back she received during the debate.  I think you are missing other relevant quotes on the topics we’ve discussed, but I am not going to review the transcript now.  I encourage people to watch the entire debate and form their own opinions.  If they come away with a better opinion of Randi and these arguments, I’m fine with that.  (Of course, Randi and her side got thrashed in the audience before-and-after voting, but I know nothing about that particular audience and their biases.  Of course, the before-and-after voting tries to correct for biases to some degree.)  Similarly, if people read this thread and don’t appreciate my concerns with your statements about union activity outside of NY and teachers choosing to join the UFT, I’m fine with that too.  More important than our opinions and potential biases, though, are people finding out what is actually going on.  These conversations help with that, I think. I’m signing off on this thread.  I mean it this time!  Thanks for the conversation.

Ken,

When confronted with real evidence showing that I am wrong, I can admit it.

When confronted with real evidence you say the equivalent of, “Well, I’m not not going to prove anything, but pardon me while I accuse you of leaving stuff out. And I won’t explain why, but I think that what you’ve presented is bad, even if it doesn’t do what I previously said it does.”

If the facts don’t fit your argument, you’ll just go away but won’t admit wrong? Good to know.

““If teachers unions were to be blamed for failing schools, then we would assume that schools in less unionized states would outperform schools in more densely unionized states.”

That has to win some kind of stupidest-statement-of-the-year award. What it’s missing: “holding everything else equal,” or “controlling for everything else,” etc.

Mr. Buck,

The resolution of the debate did not include the word “partially.” The resolution posits that all the blame should be put on charter schools.

Actually read what Weingarten says and you’ll find — over and over again, every year — that she talks about how complicated it all is.

Alex!  You know how to bait me!  OK… I’ll respond to the quote and give you one that is missing. 

First, one that is missing relevant to our conversations.  Randi states:

“The overwhelming number of teachers opt to join a union because whether it’s in New York state or other places, everyone has a choice as to whether or not to join a union, and ultimately — people — they do… Legally everyone has the choice.  In New York City they have the choice.  All over the country they have the choice.  They may not have the choice about whether or not to pay for the services the union renders but they have the choice to join the union.  And in New York City 96 percent of the people who teach in New York City opt to join the union.”

Now, given how the system works, I think that statement is misleading.  They don’t “opt to join the union” in any real sense.  They have to opt to get OUT of the union.  Also, opting to get out the union would accomplish nothing, as far as I know, other than alienate union members.  Moreover, even if the statement is technically true (which I don’t think it is), what’s the point of it other than to deceive listeners into thinking that 96% of teachers in NYC support the union?  Is that a fair statement given how the “opt in/out” system actually works?  If you answer one question in this comment, please focus on this one.

As for the first quote you list, Randi:
1. Doesn’t mention that unions and teacher organizations are active, for example the Texas AFT, in creating some of the same policy moves in states like Texas as exist in states like New York.

2. Despite loads of other important factors, she uses this one correlation to ask “What does that tell us?”  What does she want people to think?  Then, Terry Moe pushes back:

“… to say basically that schools in the South don’t do as well as schools in the North, which is true, and that schools in the South don’t have unions and the schools in the North do, and to day, gee whiz, it must be because unions are good for schools.  I — don’t try that a university.  It doesn’t wash.”

After that, Randi gives your second quote. 

I enjoyed the debate.  I hope people watch it or read the transcript!

Can you summarize your point of view on this stuff, preferably without insulting me?

Mr. Hoffmann, I can’t really figure out how anything you said is responsive to what I said. Maybe you were thinking of an earlier comment?

Ken,

I’m looking for intellectual honesty. You keep accusing Weingarten of being dishonest — though you don’t use that word — without backing it up.

1) Which statement do not think is untrue? What is your basis for that accusation?

2) There are 40 other states that she could have mentioned. Do you think that she ought to have examined the dynamics in each and every one?

3) She intentionally chose states that allow but do not require collective bargaining. She was making a particular point, and not one that you seem to be responding to.

You seem to be repeating your desire for those who don’t agree with you to explain the context that best supports your point, even if it isn’t part of the point they are making.

********************

I’ve made my “point of view on this stuff” (if by that you mean the accuracy of blaming unions for our schools’ problems) clear over and over again.

People who have read contract, looked at legislation, examined how schools actually operate and listen to what others blame issues on know that things people most often blame are contracts rarely are to be found therein. The failures of our schools come from my causes, and a truly informed view make is impossible to put unions high on the list.

While there are some combative union and chapter leaders, the problems that can be honestly and knowledgeably traced to them pale before the problems caused by unwise or ineffective district and school leadership. Superintendents have far more influence than union leaders, and principals have far more influence than chapter leaders. It’s not even close.

Of course, there are wider problems as well, things whose origins are outside the schools, beyond the control of unions or educational administrators. But it is clear that those with formal responsibility for results have found a convenient scapegoat in unions, even if the facts do not support their vague theories of action.

It is the responsibility of supervisors to properly evaluate their people, and accurately document what they find. Problems that occur after they have failed to do that should be put on their them, and no one else. You don’t blame the calculus teacher for his/her student being unable to do arithmetic, and you don’t blame the construction firm for the problems in the blueprints.

Moe and the rest of his crew tried to deny the resolution in the debate “DON’T BLAME TEACHERS UNIONS FOR OUR FAILING SCHOOLS” by repeatedly pointing out that unions are not big supporters of charter schools, without any support for their implications that charter schools are superior to public schools or are even a scalable policy. This is typical of those who would bash union. Vague theories of action that they are unable to fill out, let alone support with real evidence. Ignorance at best, and intellectual dishonesty at worst.

If unions are the problem — or even are a significant contributor to the problem — then that should be a testable proposition. There should mechanisms and processes that explain how it happens. And we should be able to example if those theories hold true.

You yourself should already be acknowledging — even actively spreading the word — that collective bargaining rights and teachers union contracts are not “the” problem, or even a significant contributor to these problems, as you are learning that states without collective bargaining rights appear to have the same issues.

As you continue to search for ways to blame unions, you should be pointing to specific policies, how unions are responsible for them and how those policies play out in districts and schools — and in *classrooms* — to the detriment of education. If you cannot do that, if you cannot do all three of those things, then your assertions that teachers unions are a problem are little more the same kind of scapegoating that enables outsiders to avoid looking into the real issues of teaching and learning and allows school and district leaders to avoid their own management and leadership failures.

No one care more than me about finding real ways to improve our schools, but there simply isn’t evidence to support claims that getting rid of teachers unions help students. Heck, there isn’t even good reasoning.

And so, as all this attention given to charter schools distracts from solutions with real potential, blaming teachers unions distracts from examining the real dynamics in schools and districts that created the problems we see in our classrooms. And at the end of the day, that’s what I care about, what actually happens where the students are.

Mr. Buck,

You grabbed a piece of a quote from a particular debate. The point she was making was in response to a resolution which the debate was focused on discussing.

(You went to HLS, right? I don’t need to explain how form debate works, do I?)

You cite Weingarten’s comment as stupid, and out of context it would be. But in the context of the debate, there was no need to say “all else being equal.”

I would applaud Weingarten, along with Terry Moe, Rod Paige and the other three who took part in the debate, for their supposed willingness to participate in a program that demands that they make some of their thinking so explicit and requires them to respond to the points of their opponents. But it seems that you would hold it against them, because their focus on the actual question of the debate can produce quotes which — out of context — might seem foolish.

Huh?  How would the context of the debate in any way excuse her ignorant (or dishonest) attempt to suggest that one can simply compare the academic performance of unionized states to non-unionized states without controlling for anything else?  

Thanks Alex.  

I think Randi’s quote on “opting to join a union” crosses the line into “untrue”, but it is, in the very least, deceptive.  What do you think she was getting at?

On a note related to your last comments, Terry Moe, in the debate stated:

“[The research literature is] pretty big on the impact of collective bargaining on student achievement.  She [Kate, not Randi] says there’s nothing.  There is, plenty…  The results in this literature are pretty mixed.  And I think it’s party because, A, it’s complicated, and B, a lot of the studies don’t do it very well.  But there are two studies that are actually in very top-level journals, they have been through very rigorous peer review process.  They are one by Caroline Hoxby… Another one is by me in the “American Journal of Political Science,” 2009.  Both these studies show, through a quantitative analysis, both of them very extensive, that the impact of collective bargaining on student achievement is negative.”

Of course, Hoxby and Moe might be viewed as biased.  (Not like Weingarten!)  

Finally, I hear you (and others) about looking at leadership, both principals and higher, for other areas for improvement in the system.  That makes a lot of sense.

Ken,

Moe’s paper does not look at the presence of collective bargaining. He is misrepresenting what his paper is even about. In his own words, from the paper itself, he is looking at “contract restrictiveness.” That simply is not the same thing. Moreover, all of his data points come from a state that requires collective bargaining by teachers, so his data is not remotely capable of addressing the question at hand. Not that he claims in the paper that it does.

Hoxby has, as I have said here on Gotham, a long history of sampling issues, as well. I’ve not seen the paper he is referring to, but I’d bet that it has sampling problems, too.

So, if Moe has to misrepresent his own work to support his claims, the evidence he wants might not exist anywhere.

Which bring me back to Mr. Buck’s latest comment. Quite simply the studies he would cite to support his point simply don’t exist. Running the regressions — on the state or district level, I believe — including the independent variables he mentions (and others that we’d agree on) and union penetration rate simple do not show that that union penetration is a statistically significant variable, let alone one with large effects. In other words, if you

However, one doesn’t even need run those to understand what she was saying. in the context of the resolution at the heart of the debate (one that does include the existence of other factors), and the arguments made by Moe et al (which do not acknowledge the existence of other factors, either), her statement is clear. Heck, it’s right there in what he quoted. She doesn’t say “partially,” either. She is talking about *solely*, just like everyone else. Whether you control for those factors, or not, MA does better.

As for the dumbest statement? Well, misrepresenting your own paper that came out so recently is truly much much dumber.

******************

What was Weingarten getting at with “opting to join a union”? I think she was getting at the fact that teachers have the option, and look at where they end up. She never said “opt in,” so your demand that she should have said “opt out” is simply too much.

Let’s give everyone a better sense of what she was saying.

“Legally everyone has the choice. In New York City they have the choice. All over the country they have the choice. They may not have the choice about whether or not to pay for the services the union renders but they have the choice to join the union. And in New York City 96 percent of the people who teach in New York City opt to join the union.”

I think that that is pretty clear.

But you think that she should have said “opt not to opt out of joining the union, and opt not to quite the union” or “don’t either opt out of joining the union or quit the union”? Seriously? She opted for a simple statement that was easily understandable in the context of the larger debate, one that is 100% literally correct. Even if I WERE to grant that it is dishonest or deceptive, what does that mean in the context of THIS debate? Would it make unions more to blame for the failures of our schools?

And what does that have to do with the question of the publicness of charter schools?

Agreed!  We have traveled a long way from the point of your post.  You should be happy that it lead to all of this discussion (or at least some of it).  It’s common for us to address supporting arguments for some original point until we are very far from that original point.  

Moe’s paper is indeed about the restrictiveness of contracts . . . but that does tell us something about collective bargaining and union influence, because if you think that greater union influence leads to restrictive contracts and if restrictive contracts in turn harm academic achievement, then it’s a simple chain of logic (A => B and B => C, therefore A => C). In other words, if Moe is showing that the sorts of things that unions demand end up harming academic achievement, then that’s basically the same as showing that greater political power for the union to satisfy its demands will end up harming academic achievement.

Mr. Buck,

How do you know which of those demands came from which party? Have you been in the negotiating room for any of those sessions?

Your argument has more than one logical leap.

In fact, Moe did nothing to show that even the most restrictive collectively bargained contract produces worst achievement gains (all else being equal, of course). He simply does not have evidence that the fact of collective bargaining itself is bad, because his sample contains ONLY districts with collectively bargained contracts.

So, perhaps he is showing that one links in his and/or your chain of argument is strong, but it’s not the one he claims it is.

Well, I suppose it’s logically possible that unions offer to get rid of provisions in their favor but school districts insist on keeping such provisions, just like all the times that unions demand lower pay, but that doesn’t seem like the best way to bet.

Tell the Truth,

You’re absolutely right: the UFT forces teachers to do so many things.

It forces them to earn better salaries and benefits than non-unionized teachers.

It forces them to have some protection from arbitrary or vindictive dismissal.

It forces them to have minimum class sizes (without which, the Chancellor and Mayor would put 50 students in a class).

It forces them to have some say in the running of the school.

It forces them to have a political voice and political power (you see, I won’t even apologize for it!).

Yes, that mean and nasty union forces so many awful things upon us. So much, much better – as you suggest – to get rid of it, and be free to work for less, and have less control over our work.

Better to smash the chains of the UFT’s “inflexible bureaucracy” and find professional bliss in the supportive, respectful, communitarian embrace of Michael Bloomberg’s DOE.

[...] of the largest issues in the charter school debates has been accusations that charters “counsel out” students who have learning disabilities or who do not adhere to the schools’ strict codes [...]

I just want to know. At the end of the day, when some crazy charter school principal wants to put a teacher or any other employee out on their behinds for no justified reason other than to satisfy his/her ego, who ultimately represents and advocates for said teacher or employee??
I’ve seen it happen in 2 charter schools where I’ve worked and no one was around in defense of these people.