I certainly would have liked to watch the expressions on some of the private operators' faces when teacher Mike Meehan of the Construction Careers Center in St. Louis, said he had come to spread the word that "the union is a good thing." I imagine at least several cups of spilled coffee.
This from the Times-Picayune:
Though most charters shun teachers' unions -- which typically lobby against charters -- Meehan said his colleagues recently unionized despite opposition from the school's board. He said their desires -- job security, a pay scale and books for all students -- fell on deaf ears. "The teachers and even the parents at our school have been left out of the loop. That's why we wanted to unionize," Meehan said.Other good charter issues at the conference catching my eye included teacher recruitment and the lack of diversity on charter school boards:
The influx of rookie teachers, who come bearing vigor, nonetheless concerns some veterans, who question their effectiveness without enough support.
...New Schools have not been able to systematically draw enough African-Americans to boards. Efforts to diversify the boards at some schools, however, have already produced productive dialogue.
Mike Klonsky
Charter school insiders and advocates consistently cite the LACK of job security for teachers as a primary advantage of charters. The idea that charter schools should unionize runs directly counter to that view. How do liberals and supporters of teachers reconcile that? (Often, I'm sorry to say, by going la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you, or shooting the messenger.)
ReplyDelete