GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

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?

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.

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?

KitchenSink,

1) I already did.

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

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…

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.

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.

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.

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?

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,

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.

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.

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.