Edwize goes after a Brooklyn charter school with a pipe wrench over the firing of teacher Nichole Byrne Lau, allegedly for questioning the school’s pay practices. (This came, by the way, after Lau received overwhelming praise from her principal, other faculty members and students.) The school founder and CEO, who apparently never learned the first rule of holes, then reportedly said the teacher was fired because she "hates children and she’s a racist." Every New York newspaper is reporting on this, so click a link for more information. Edwize sums up thusly:
That is why teachers in charter schools, like teachers in other public schools, need unions. And it is also why, as the case of Nichole Byrne Lau so pointedly illustrates, students in charter schools need to have their teachers protected by unions. If there was a union at the Williamsburg Charter High School, the students in that school would still have one great, wonderful teacher of English.
Joe Williams response provides some important perspective:
…if this one is for real, there is already a process in place to protect the teacher here, and the school’s charter could (and should) be revoked if the allegations of union-busting are true.
We wholeheartedly agree that, if these allegations are true, the school richly deserves to be stripped of its charter. And while the UFTies are appropriately full of righteous indignation, there are other avenues for redress present (imagine lawyers presently strapping on the brass knuckles right now–rest assured there will be an awesome legal brawl over this). But Joe has another salient point on the union’s posturing:
…I think Leo is making a stretch when he suggests that all charters need unions just because of one dude who seems to be on an ego trip.
Actually, it’s not Leo–it’s his boss. The Sun’s report on the situation suggests the UFT may be using this as an agenda vehicle:
The head of the city’s teachers union is latching onto a recent spate of firings at a Brooklyn charter school to push Albany to make it easier for teachers at charter schools to join the union…
In recent months, the union has tried to stop Albany from increasing the number of charter schools allowed under state law. While the state Senate voted in favor of the governor’s push to raise the number of allowed schools to 250 from 100, the Assembly left Albany for the summer without voting on the measure.
Ms. Weingarten said she wants any legislation that allows for additional charter schools to include language that protects teachers who try to organize and ensures an expedited process so that administrators cannot interfere in organizing drives or harass pro-union workers. In that process, teachers could sign cards rather than have a secret-ballot election to form a union.
The policy director for the New York Charter School Association, Peter Murphy, called the union’s efforts "counterproductive." He said that the charter law already stipulates a complaint process for teachers and that a school can have its charter revoked for violating a teacher’s rights.
"She’s exploiting this issue to try and organize the easy way, by having it mandated," Mr. Murphy said of Ms. Weingarten.
We make no secret of the fact that we generally view the teachers’ unions as a major obstacle–not just to our efforts, but to any meaningful education reform. And in spite of what Edwize and likeminded unionistas would have you believe, it’s not because we get warm fuzzies by seeing teachers indiscriminately shown the door by all-powerful principals.
It’s because of stuff like this: the utterly insane process one must follow to fire a New York City public schoolteacher, brought to you almost singlehandedly by the unions. It is, for all practical purposes, nearly impossible to do so, no matter how bad he/she is. And if that’s the case, what principal is going to waste his/her time on the mediocre ones–those who really don’t measure up, but haven’t done anything utterly reprehensible?
One of the advantages choice schools report enjoying over their public counterparts is the liberty to independently make personnel decisions. Free of the thickets of union laws, bylaws and regulations, they don’t have to wade through a sea of paperwork and spend prohibitive amounts of time and money getting a slipshod teacher out of the way. Is it any wonder charter schools shudder at the thought of union contact?
The UFT has far more control than administrators in deciding which teachers go to which schools. It opposes merit pay. It has enormous power in deciding curriculum (another major advantage choice schools enjoy). Is it any wonder the New York Daily News ran a series of editorials last year practically begging the UFT to make some changes during contract talks last year?
If the unions were simply in the business of protecting and elevating good teachers, then we would probably count them as allies. But the unions are in the business of protecting and elevating all teachers, regardless of ability and quality, at any cost. That’s the problem.
Sphere: Related Content
