At a National Education Association convention in 1987, I was the floor manager for a new business item endorsing newly expanding magnet schools. Despite the strong support of then NEA President Mary Hatwood Futrell, the item lost because opponents successfully argued that magnet schools drained money and top students from neighborhood schools, creating a public school system of haves and have-nots.
Over time, however, the conversation started to change as thousands of magnet school teachers joined the NEA as magnets grew throughout the 80s. By 1989, the NEA had reversed course and started supporting these schools.
Thirty years later, magnet schools still often attract money and top students from neighborhood schools. In some communities, they may even have contributed to a divide between haves and have-nots in public schools. But teacher unions today don’t talk about these effects, and remain supportive of magnets.
Now, as teachers unions battle charter school supporters over language in the Democratic Party platform, and union organizing drives in public charter schools continue to get attention around the country, the question arises: Will the politics of charters follow the same course as magnet schools? Will teacher unions change from opposing to supporting charter schools if enough charter school teachers start paying union dues? If teacher unions become charter school enthusiasts, the Democratic Party will likely follow suit.
Evidence of how dues-paying teachers can impact a union’s charter school policies is emerging in California, where a growing number of charter school teachers are union members. Earlier this month, the Los Angeles teachers union filed a grievance against the LA school district on behalf of charter school teachers who are union members, demanding that the district pay these teachers’ retirement benefits.
The reasons for the union’s advocacy on behalf of charter school teachers are complex. But it’s worth noting that the union’s advocacy comes just weeks after the LA union released a paper arguing that charter schools are draining students and money from LA district schools.
The LA teacher union now finds itself in an awkward position on charters. It’s consistently opposed charter school growth in Southern California, though its obligations to its members often cause it to stand up for public school teachers who work in charters.
If charter school teachers start paying dues in larger numbers, it’s certainly possible the union’s stance on charters will evolve, much like it did for magnet schools a generation ago.
Charter school operators and teachers need to decide if they want this deal. Having the full support of teacher unions and the Democratic Party will allow charter schools to focus less on politics and more on educating children.
But union contracts generally follow a one-size-fits-all approach that centralizes decision-making authority and disempowers individual teachers, parents and school-level managers. If charter schools are to enter into partnerships with traditional teacher unions, they’ll need to do so while maintaining their ability to innovate and continually improve. This will be no easy task. While charter school collective bargaining agreements sometimes contain innovative measures that benefit students and educators alike, they often wind up borrowing counterproductive provisions from labor agreements in district-run schools.
While charter school teachers, parents and students would benefit from the support of the national teacher unions and the Democratic Party, the unions themselves could benefit even more. Our country desperately needs a progressive teacher union movement that fully embraces customized teaching and learning, decentralized decision-making, and empowerment of students and educators.
The NEA has highlighted some of the advantages of magnet schools, which I witnessed myself as an International Baccalaureate instructor in St. Petersburg, Fla. In a word, the difference is ownership.
Parents become more engaged, students are more motivated, and teachers more empowered to customize instruction to meet the needs of each student. These positive developments occur more often when everyone at that school is there by choice. In Los Angeles and all over the country, charter schools have made these same advantages available to millions of low-income learners who often lack equal access to magnet programs like the one I helped found.
If progressive educators can embrace a form of unionism that is more committed to teacher and parent empowerment, and to ensuring all children have access to the learning options that best meet their needs, everyone will benefit.
