The teachers’ union “strongly supports charter schools“.

The nation’s two largest teachers unions talk up their support of charters, but their actions tell a different story. The successful charter concept is rooted in autonomy and accountability  - that, folks, is not what’s in the fine print on the union label.

As entrenched and deep-pocketed political behemoths, the unions’ first line of attack is against charter school legislation and laws themselves, seeking to prevent their passage or implementation (as they did successfully in Washington), to get strong laws watered down into weak ones, or to have them killed in the courts (as they tried to do in Ohio). In state after state, however, the courts have upheld the constitutionality of charter school laws against union plaintiffs. So…

If the unions can’t kill a bill outright, they seek to limit authorizing authority to local school boards, majorities of whom they often already have in their pocket. It’s a fact that 52 percent of the nation’s charter schools are authorized by local school boards, but states in which the local school board is the sole authorizing body account for only 604 of the nation’s 4,600 charter schools.

Similarly, unions’ ‘charter support’ does not extend to willingly giving up their own monopoly on teacher bargaining (and the dues that go with it). One of the hallmarks of the charter concept is operational autonomy, which includes not forcing teachers to unionize. Yet the teachers unions push for charters to be required to bargain collectively, rather than make it an option as the discretion of each school (as it is in states with strong laws and strong schools). Not surprisingly, the states that mandate collective bargain are home to a mere 113 charter schools.

When they can’t leverage their influence at the legislative level to mandate union membership, the unions try to infiltrate at the local level. The United Federation of Teachers, most recently drew a bead on two New York City KIPP charter schools - two in a network of more than 60 schools in 19 states and D.C. that are nationally recognized for their ability to bring academic excellence to some of the most disadvantaged urban neighborhoods. The union initially managed to recruit a majority of teachers, but the effort began to unravel as teachers recognized “that the active presence of an external negotiating representative could compromise the strong environment of communication and collaboration that is integral to the success of our schools.” (Interesting, in the wake of the failed coup, two other NYC KIPP schools that had been in the union fold requested dissolution of the relationship.)

The union contract, with its insistence on seniority over merit and focus on job mechanics over student achievement, runs counter to the basic charter concept.

Teachers unions have begun to pay more lip service to the charter school concept as it has captured the nation’s attention with example after example of innovation and excellence - particularly as the economic downturn has highlighted our urgent need for a better educated citizenry. But their persistent focus on protecting adult jobs regardless - and even at the expense - of the intellectual welfare and academic progress of children - exposes their empty rhetoric.

Ah, but for the days of the straight-talking Al Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers, who famously said: “When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.”

Still, even in the face of staunch union opposition, charters continue to grow and provide options for students and their families. As of the 2008-09 school year, almost 4,600 charter schools are serving more than 1.4 million children in 40 states and the District of Columbia.

Online resources from The Center for Education Reform:

About Teachers Unions (link)

Big Learning Organization Bureaucracies (link)