Stop Bashing Teachers (Part III)

(Continued from December 2, 2009)

The hostility to unions is one cause of the enthusiasm for charter schools, the hottest educational innovation since co-ed schooling or chalk. The basic idea behind charter schools is that they are publically funded but "chartered" by individuals or groups who want to take a different approach to education. Fair enough, and there are certainly good charter schools out there, but we have yet to see comprehensive information that "proves" that charter schools work significantly better than regular schools. And even if we do see such information, it must be taken with a grain of salt. Charter schools don't always work with the same student population as their non-chartered peers. For example, charters often use some kind of lottery system for admissions. While any student can participate in the lottery, it takes highly motivated and savvy parents to know about the lottery in the first place. We're certainly not criticizing highly involved parents, but we wonder if those parents' children would have a leg up wherever they went to school. Similarly, charters may not have to serve as many "problem" students--those with disabilities, those with behavioral/emotional problems, those with limited English--as a regular public school might.

The charters also don't have to conform to union rules: They can hire non-union teachers, pay less than prevailing wages, demand longer hours. The trade-off, though, is that teachers may have more control over the curriculum. A charter school could conceivably demand nine hour days or summer classes or weekend programs. One of the most famous programs in the charter movement is the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP). These school have rigorous requirements for students and parents (and teachers). Students wear uniforms and are drilled in subject matter over the course of very long school days. And the results are often impressive. We can see why an observer might scoff at the "necessity" of unionized teachers when the non-union equivalent can get such strong results.

Maybe.

See, here's what we think: We think the charter movement is still fairly young. We suspect that many charter-school teachers are indeed fine educators, top graduates of education programs at elite colleges and the like. We're sure that the thought of being able to create something new, to try out new strategies, to really make a difference, is appealing to these idealistic young people. They probably question the necessity of membership in a hidebound, rule-obsessed union. They want to change the world.

What happens, though, ten years down the road when these idealistic young things are married, with children of their own to support? What happens when they get worn out by the crushing grind of 12 hour days? What happens when, having developed their own expertise in teaching, they want to try something different, something that doesn't conform to the curriculum of the charter school they call home?

Well, easy! The charter school can thank them for their service and send them on their way! There's always a new crop of ed-school grads waiting to take their place!

Either that, or these charter school teachers can think about unionizing, too. One wonders if that will turn them into slack-jawed incompetents in the eyes of the teacher-bashers.