Re: [arn-l] Charter schools and union busting

[Peter Farruggio <pfarr@cal.berkeley.edu>]

I'll add this to the equation.  From my experience in the San 
Francisco Bay Area, the trend is that these charters and small 
schools are seen as laboratories for change, and attract idealistic 
young people who see teaching in "savage inequalities" communities as 
a way to practice social reform.  They largely buy into the 
propaganda about career urban teachers being losers and mercenaries, 
in some cases because they have worked as teachers in the large, 
overcrowded, dilapidated urban schools for a few years alongside some 
colleagues who are horrible, uncaring teachers.  In devastated school 
districts like Oakland, these horrible teachers are a small minority, 
but nevertheless a notable presence that reflects chronic 
underfunding, bureaucratic mistreatment of good teachers, and low 
salaries/lousy benefits.  These young idealists mostly come from 
suburban middle class backgrounds, and have no experience with labor 
unions, and buy in to the propaganda that "the union" is primarily 
the refuge of scoundrels, these horrible teachers who soak up much of 
the union's resources in protecting their jobs.

I predict that few of these young idealists will stick around in our 
low income communities for more than 2-3 years, because it will take 
them that long to realize that the corporate standardista strategy is 
to standardize their "laboratories" by stamping out any forms of 
progressive pedagogy (if such even exists at their small schools) and 
militarizing the instruction.  Yes, I believe that the smallness of 
the schools does bring greater potential for building a community 
atmosphere and relating to the students as human beings.  This 
improved school climate, especially in contrast to the prison-like 
big secondary schools, makes for a pleasant work atmosphere; but the 
charm wears off as the idealists see that they are expected (ordered) 
to deliver a test-prep curriculum and that the illusion of democratic 
decision-making is just an illusion.  I taught an intern who had gone 
through this experience in the infamous Edison charter school in San 
Francisco (since closed down) over a two year period, and who quit in 
disgust after trying to unionize.  I had other interns who were going 
through something similar as they taught in the newly opened military 
charter school in Oakland, and I witnessed the one-step bureaucratic 
takeover of the small schools in Oakland last year by the 
state-appointed dictator, wherein the original idea of encouraging 
the creation of  unique, grass roots  new schools by teams of 
reform-minded educators/parents/community organizations was quashed 
by the imposition of mandated curriculum (Open Court, etc) and 
one-size-fits-all formulae.

The small schools in Oakland are part of the union-shop contract, and 
thus the young idealists benefit from the union-negotiated salary and 
benefits (such as they are) and the due process job protections, but 
for most of them these things are not important because they don't 
yet have dependents to support and they don't see teaching as their 
long-term career.  As the bureaucratization of their small schools 
becomes apparent to them, we'll see how their consciousness 
forms.  Will they stay in our working class communities and fight to 
make the union an instrument for social change, or will they just go away?

Pete Farruggio




At 09:39 AM 6/2/2006, you wrote:
> Though I have no direct experience with charters, George's list of 
> reasons why most charters aren't unionized rings true to the 
> realities of new small (non-charter) schools in Oakland. Even though 
> all of the teachers in these schools are within the bargaining unit 
> represented by our union, Oakland Education Association (OEA), the 
> teachers in these schools tend to be much less involved in the union 
> in, even less conscious of its existence. And I'd say nearly all of 
> the reasons George gives for why charters remain nonunion apply in 
> these cases, too.
>
> In addition to the proliferation of new small (non-charter) schools 
> within the district, Oakland has more charters per capita than any 
> other urban district in Calfornia (close to 30 now). It also has 
> several "internal charters" the district started up under the 
> auspices of a nonprofit (Education for Change) it set up and runs 
> with one of its "former" administrators!
>
> The latest very dangerous development comes with our recently 
> approved, concession-filled contract between OEA and the 
> state-controlled district. The new contract paves the way to what 
> some of us call "back door charters." The district can now form new 
> schools waiving a wide range of contract provisions, and the union's 
> ability to stop such waivers is marginal at best. Prior to this 
> latest concession, school site faculties already had the ability to 
> initiate, vote upon, and obtain contract waivers for sustainable 
> site-based reforms. This concession imposing waivers upon new school 
> staffs within the bargaining unit seems to parallel the trend of 
> unions organizing charters, bringing new members in, but granting 
> significant contract waivers.
>
> Craig Gordon
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 5/23/2006 11:58:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
> learn@jps.net writes:
> At 04:02 AM 5/23/2006 -0400, George Schmidt wrote:
> >5/23/06
> >
> >Does anyone here know why charter school staffs aren't unionized?
>
> Some are, most aren't.
>
> Some possible reasons that may explain some of the cases:
>
> It's easier to organize one large employer than many small ones.
>
> Some local unions have not had the experience in many years of organizing a
> new group of workers, as opposed to just signing up new members in an
> already established unit.
>
> Some charter school operators (entrepreneurial types) do everything they
> can to thwart union organizing.
>
> Labor law today favors employers who resist organizing attempts. Legal
> provisions that protect employee rights to organize are not enforced in a
> timely manner, which means that organizing attempts are broken long before
> judgments are handed down.
>
> Some charters are small. Idealistic teachers believe they have no need for
> a union. In some cases they believe they are in control of the charter.
>
> Some teachers make such strong emotional and ideological investments in
> charters that, like true believers in any cause, their commitments distort
> their ability to make objective judgments regarding the charters, even when
> it concerns their own self-interest.
>
> Many charters are relatively new. Teachers are so used to putting up with
> things that it will take a few years before they decide conditions in some
> of these charters are unacceptable.
>
> In some charters, turnover is so very high that teachers don't stick around
> long enough to complete an organizing drive.
>
>
>
> George Sheridan
>
> Rita Mae Brown wrote, "The reward for conformity was that everyone liked
> you except yourself."