The Black Informant | African American Commentary, News and Community Building

Dr. Williams presents a false pretense here: there is no such monopoly on education held by local, state, or Federal gov’t. Private schools exist; you and I have the option to send our children to private schools (but perhaps not the means) as well as either of us, or anyone can start a private school or opt to home school. Additionally, many metropolitan districts permit schools to be run under a charter agreement.

Admittedly, education reform is an extremely complex endeavor involving (at minimum) political, economic, and administrative factors. IMO, the politics have produced intractable, problematic extremes that are more to blame for the inertia as teachers unions (a popular scapegoat), superintendants/chancellors, or school lunches, for that matter. Neither major political party presents viable, comprehensive solutions, which explains why challenging your opponents is nothing more than a straw man.

‘School choice’ — in the form of publicly-financed tuition for private primary and secondary education — isn’t a practical solution, financially, politically, or demographically, for reforming public education. Presuming one primary goal of public education is the provision of a (roughly) uniform, baseline resource for the greatest number of individuals, privatization threatens that aspect of schooling whic is aimed at promoting civic harmony and social order. The weakness with so-called ‘market-based’ education hypotheses is their emphasis on profits over human considerations.

Additionally, many metropolitan districts permit schools to be run under a charter agreement.

If there is enough media and public attention, yes. Otherwise unions will do all they can to block it with the help of local and national Democratic leaders.

IMO, the politics have produced intractable, problematic extremes that are more to blame for the inertia as teachers unions (a popular scapegoat), superintendants/chancellors, or school lunches, for that matter. Neither major political party presents viable, comprehensive solutions, which explains why challenging your opponents is nothing more than a straw man.

Sorry to break it to you, but unions can MAKE or BREAK politicians. Unions are a little more than mere “straw men”.

I see no problem in directing my own tax money that is slated for public education to the school of my choice. For many parents out there, they are in a district where their kids would have to go to an ‘under performing’ school that has a long history of doing just that. If I do not use the services, my money should not be mandated by some social order to go to these types of schools. Every person should have that same right. These are not public roads we are talking about here.

The weakness with so-called ‘market-based’ education hypotheses is their emphasis on profits over human considerations.

And public schools supposedly do the reverse?

btw, unions and government are not the only culprits in this issue.

“If there is enough media and public attention, yes. Otherwise unions will do all they can to block it with the help of local and national Democratic leaders.”

Teachers unions are not categorically against charter schools as you suggest. IIRC, the CEO of the Green Dot charter program in CA has insisted his teachers join the state union. The teachers union in Boston, I believe, is starting their own charter schools. Similarly, as there are more charter schools in CA — a state dominated by Democrats — the accusation Democrats are wholly against charter schools is without merit. The charter school movement in D.C. also enjoys widespread political support despite occasional incidents that cast charter schools in a negative light.

“… unions can MAKE or BREAK politicians.”

Teachers unions don’t have the influence they once did. However, you initially asked why Democratic voters don’t take issue with Democratic elected officials over ineffective educational reform policies. They do. There are multiple examples of voters pushing mayors, governors, public bureaucrats, and school board officials toward action. And, there are Democratic elected officials who submit their own ideas while implementing those from others. My point being public education has been politicized (from many different directions) in a way that makes simple reforms difficult and complex reforms untenable.

“I see no problem with directing my own tax money that is slated for public education to the school of my choice.”

Depending on what you mean by ‘school of my choice’, there can be a serious conflict that can’t be easily reconciled. You certainly enjoy no right to compel taxpayers to underwrite your private decisions. I certainly do not want to subsidize your kids’ tuition fees from private schools, because there’s no way equal access to that school can be guaranteed to the general population of students. Chances are, if you live in a moderately populated area, you have other public school options at your disposal, as well as private and home schooling choices (the latter subject to your desire to pay for the privilege).

Teachers unions are not categorically against charter schools as you suggest.

Similarly, as there are more charter schools in CA — a state dominated by Democrats — the accusation Democrats are wholly against charter schools is without merit.

Again, if you follow the entire metamorphosis of these charter schools, you will find (especially here in CA) that school administrators and teacher unions were the initial major roadblocks of these schools. In all of the cases that I have followed over the years it was the PARENTS that made the difference (coupled with media attention).

Since teacher unions do hold a monopoly over many of our public schools (Walter Williams did not touch on the mandatory dues many of these unions require on teachers even when they are not members of the union in many districts) it would be wise for Green dot to leave the door open for unions, otherwise they would not have a chance in this highly politicized environment.

And let’s be clear here. I am referring to the Democratic party–not Democratic voters–big difference. Charter schools fall under ‘school choice’ and I have yet to hear any Democratic official push legislation for school choice. It has been parents who have been driving the charter school wave, not Democratic politicians or unions.

As far as your Boston example goes…

Union woos teachers at charter schools

Effort dismays administrators

Here’s another article

From the sound of it, it doesn’t appear that the two are on the same page: one wants to expand the bureaucracy and the other wants to leave it (Same thing in LA). If you think that these unions want to expand to charter schools simply because they care for these teachers as opposed to expanding their own base, wow!

However, you initially asked why Democratic voters don’t take issue with Democratic elected officials over ineffective educational reform policies. They do.

As I suggested earlier in this comment, many Democratic voters do—to an extent. While they may raise enough noise about school reform, they continue to vote the same characters in office while being content with the Democratic rhetoric over consistent under-performing school districts: “It’s the devil’s Republican’s fault”. Seems to me that if a politician will not back parents who want a charter school in their district, he/she should not be re-elected–but they do! This same voting block and its leaders has also done little to ensure that school finances are properly administrated. Instead they bring up the straw man of how funds and good teachers are going to the suburbs instead of inner-city schools without addressing poor administration issues the plague many of these districts. Any responsible voter would ask the question “How is existing funding being spent?”

I certainly do not want to subsidize your kids’ tuition fees from private schools, because there’s no way equal access to that school can be guaranteed to the general population of students.

It is not YOUR money in the first place. The way I understand it as far as vouchers go, individuals are given the opportunity to ‘send’ their money to the school of their choice. This is what I am for:

Under the UTTC, any Michigan taxpayer, whether an individual or corporation, can claim a dollar-for-dollar tax credit against the state income tax, Single Business Tax, or 6-mill state education property tax, for tuition paid on behalf of a public or nonpublic K-12 student. This gives parents, especially low-income parents, greater ability to choose the best school for their children.

With a tax credit, the taxpayer pays tuition for a student at a public or nonpublic school, and when he calculates his taxes, he subtracts the amount paid in tuition (subject to a maximum limit of fifty percent of what public schools receive per student) from his tax liability. The state is not involved in writing checks or selecting the school. The taxpayer, having already made the funding of education a priority, is simply allowed to offset a portion of the taxes he pays to support the school system he does not use. (source)

I am for a dollar for dollar contribution. Your monies should not subsidize my choices.

#

“… if you follow the entire metamorphosis of these charter schools, you will find (especially here in CA) that school administrators and teacher unions were the initial major roadblocks of these schools.”

The idea of charter schools came from a president of a teachers union. Again, the unions’ reactions to charter schools are anything but one-sided. In fact, the objection-in-common isn’t over charter schools in themselves, but with many school boards not requiring charter schools to hire certified teachers.

“Since teacher unions do hold a monopoly over public schools…”

That is factually incorrect for a number of reasons. For one, many states are ‘right-to-work’ states which prohibit unions from requiring union membership as a condition of employment. Two, teachers unions typically aren’t involved with non-HR decisions made by the local department of education, i.e.; facilities management, finance, etc..

“I am referring to the Democratic party–not Democratic voters–big difference. Charter schools fall under ’school choice’ and I have yet to hear any Democratic official push legislation for school choice. It has been parents who have been driving the charter school wave, not Democratic politicians or unions.”

Again, the idea of charter schools originated with the head of a teachers union and I presume, a Democrat! Of course charter schools qualify as ‘school choice’ reforms, but they in fact exist in many cases with the endorsement of teachers unions (as I’ve cited). As to who provided the impetus — parents or Democratic elected officials — I suggest you’re positing a fallacy that’s expedient to your political views. There are numerous Democratic politicians who actively lobby for charter schools; there are even those who support school vouchers. You simply have to do your research.

“While they may raise enough noise about school reform, they continue to vote the same characters in office while being content with the Democratic rhetoric over consistent under-performing school districts: ‘It’s the devil’s Republican’s fault’.”

People tend to vote for those candidates they’re most familiar with, Duane. Regardless, school board campaigns tend to be decided very differently from campaigns for executive and/or legislative office. To wit, voters customarily select candidates who’ve been active in the neighborhood schools to serve on their school board, whereas mayoral candidates (for example) are often selected or rejected on the basis of their personas and financial wherewithal. But once again, I don’t see the pertinence of voting patterns and determining intellectual propriety given those cases when the desired outcomes — here, creating charter schools and expanding school choice — are achieved. And still, a candidate can have legitimate, principled objections to charter schools and/or school choice; he may be otherwise in harmony with the voters on the balance of campaign topics.

“This same voting block and its leaders has also done little to ensure that school finances are properly administrated. Instead they bring up the straw man of how funds and good teachers are going to the suburbs instead of inner-city schools without addressing poor administration issues the plague many of these districts.”

Wow… you sure don’t shy away from spreading the blame around, do you?

What you’ve identified here as the Peter Principle in effect is better explained as the complex politics involved with running a public bureaucracy. In the discussion of school administration, the central characters — the superintendent, mayor, school board president — often represent competing spheres of interest, yet have little (relative) authority to act somewhat unilaterally. A superintendent proposes a budget to the board, which has the authority to legislate it however it sees fit but doesn’t have the power to raise public moneys on its behalf. The mayor, meanwhile, can only lobby his city council to approve funds requested by the school board, but typically has no authority over administration of the schools. Thus, voter demand for new public school construction or better trained teachers may be undermined by contrary voter demand to keep property taxes low or minimize political influence in public service.

“It is not YOUR money in the first place. The way I understand it as far as vouchers go, individuals are given the opportunity to ’send’ their money to the school of their choice.”

You apparently don’t understand how public schools or vouchers are financed. No parent pays the full nickel of their kids’ tuition; the cost is subsidized primarily by local property taxes. You’ve misrepresented the UTTC as applicable to tuition costs of public schools. It is not. Neither is the UTTC a voucher that pays for a private education. It is simply a tax credit for non-public tuition fees paid.

The idea of charter schools came from a president of a teachers union.

Very true, however most union opposition over charter schools is over WHO CONTROLS the actual school (monopoly). Green Dot is just one of several outside groups that have been able to duplicate charter schools without all the bureaucracy.

BTW, “certified teachers” who are not union members.

That is factually incorrect for a number of reasons.

While the NRTW law has been effective in forcing dues, unions have also made it very difficult for A. non-union teachers to get full refund of past dues and B. and to simply quit altogether as in the Davenport case in Washington

Of course charter schools qualify as ’school choice’ reforms, but they in fact exist in many cases with the endorsement of teachers unions (as I’ve cited)

Again, this is not as cut and dry as you are presenting it here. Endorsement comes more as a “requirement” in the establishment of most charter schools. In the case of Locke high school in LA, the teachers wanted to leave both the public school system AND the union altogether. The union then reminded them that if they left, they would loose many of the benefits that came with staying with the system. Some of the teachers went back to the system while others rolled over to Green dot. As I stated earlier, companies like Green Dot would be foolish for not leaving the door open for unions if they want to a decent shot of competing. It’s how you get into the game, so to speak.

To wit, voters customarily select candidates who’ve been active in the neighborhood schools to serve on their school board, whereas mayoral candidates (for example) are often selected or rejected on the basis of their personas and financial wherewithal.

That last part should read “…on the basis of their personas regardless of their financial wherewithal.” Personality is a determining factor for many voters, however financial wherewithal is what needs to be addressed by voters who oftentimes easily give into calls for “more funding for X” without holding elected officials (or party in the case of districts that tend to vote for one party) to any real accountability. I would expect that those who vote for Democratic politicians on a local level would be just as eager to throw them out of office as they are with Bush when they do not meet expectations–especially when it comes to school reform. Nevertheless, many of these districts have continued to wrestle with poor administration under one party without being seriously challenged by its constituents.

Wow… you sure don’t shy away from spreading the blame around, do you?

The last I checked, school board members were elected. Voters in mostly Democratic districts have the responsibility not to elect board members who continue the status quo. Unfortunately in many cases they do. Voters also have the responsibility to vote for other officials who will challenge proposed school budgets if schools are still under-performing, but again in many cases they do not. It all goes back to what you said earlier–personality of the politician.

You apparently don’t understand how public schools or vouchers are financed.

In addition to an individual’s voluntary tax contribution, if there is a significant demand for a charter school to be established within a certain district, there should not be a funding gap–but there is when it comes to charter schools (again, we are talking about charter schools here, not private institutions.) This is partly the reason why some charter schools fail because of the reluctance of school boards to funnel much needed money to charter schools– especially if the charter school is being managed by an outside organization.

#

“… most union opposition over charter schools is over WHO CONTROLS the actual school (monopoly).”

False. Charter schools by definition are legally and financially autonomous entities often set up by NGOs. But they are public schools in the sense they abide by the rules of free tuition, open admissions, and secular orientation. Teachers unions accept this definition as a given.

I’m not sure what at this point you’re attempting to counter about the influence of teachers unions in public school systems. They definitely do not qualify as a “monopoly” as you’ve suggested for the very reasons I’ve written earlier. Neither is there even a consensus among teachers unions against charter schools, again, as I’ve explained.

Also, I’m not that familiar with the Locke H.S. example to comment beyond noticing it was the LAUSD who made the decision to award charters to Green Dot over the objections of Locke’s faculty — most of whom, I presume, belong to a union. Given Steve Barr is on the record for urging Green Dot teachers to join the union, I don’t see the evidence supporting your claim a teachers union blocked the creation of charters in that neighborhood.

It seems you’re unwilling or unable to accept voters and politicians often make compromises, be they social, financial, legal, or otherwise in order that we have an orderly society. You and I are both free to object over various ideas in the public square at our individual discretion, but I won’t fence with you over ideologically-driven doctrine. Prof. Williams and you are clearly being disinformative when stating gov’t (it’s unclear whether local, state, or Federal) maintains a monopoly over education. A large number of parents have an ever-expanding choice of public schools — between conventional and charter schools — as well as the options to ‘homeschool’ or enroll their children in private schools at their risk.

I don’t see the evidence supporting your claim a teachers union blocked the creation of charters in that neighborhood.

Which is why you need better familiarize yourself with the story instead of talking from the hip.

It seems you’re unwilling or unable to accept voters and politicians often make compromises, be they social, financial, legal, or otherwise in order that we have an orderly society. You and I are both free to object over various ideas in the public square at our individual discretion, but I won’t fence with you over ideologically-driven doctrine.

Funny!

Actually, what is really funny here is your dream world position here that willingly ignores the points that I brought up regarding how unions (not the teachers themselves, but the actual power structure over them) have made it clear for years of their opposition to charter schools–especially schools that are not controlled by them. Instead you fall back on how charter schools were founded by teacher unions without explaining their opposition to their ‘creation’ when companies like Green dot come into the picture–especially in light of the fact that teachers, students and parents requested them in the first place (as in the LA situation). Main point of frustration over charter schools? Failing schools are now put in a position to compete for school funding. But, we all know that unions know better, right? What Green Dot did in LA was not only a first or an such an organization, but it also made it easier to be replicated in NYC. You also skirt around the fact that voters (especially Democratic voters) share at least part of the blame for the condition of their schools and not some ‘untouchable’ cloud of bureaucracy.

I’ll leave you with your bias as illustrated in something you said earlier:

The weakness with so-called ‘market-based’ education hypotheses is their emphasis on profits over human considerations.

And here is what I said in response:

And public schools supposedly do the reverse?

#

Hey Duane… if you’re going to quote me, you can grant me (and your readers) the courtesy of including the entire quote as to provide proper context.

You agree with Prof. Williams’ rhetorical argument alleging an unspecified gov’t monopoly precludes parents from choosing which schools their children attend. As you’d have readers believe, teachers unions — opposed against charter schools by an implied consensus — use their influence with politicians to nullify public demand on public school choice.

Have I summed up your position correctly?

In response, I’ll first present two national teachers unions’ — the

American Federation of Teachers and the

National Education Association — official position on charter schools. You’ll note both unions support charter schools on principle (as I argued) given they meet various requirements, none of which include 1) union membership or, 2) union management.

Second, the proliferation of charter schools has been greatest in predominantly Democratic voting, ‘pro-labor’ states and districts, e.g., CA, NY, MN.

Third, in the example of the LAUSD, the school system not only approved Green Dot’s charter applications (over the objections of an unknown number of Locke’s teachers), Green Dot recommends its teachers join the union. Supposing for the sake of argument the local union was also opposed to the LAUSD granting charters, the result was the union wasn’t successful. This supposition, however, is unfounded as it has been established teachers unions aren’t opposed to charter schools (see above links to AFT and NEA). Even those Locke faculty members protesting the LAUSD decision were attempting to form a charter school! In further support of this point, an example was provided where a group of teachers who were also union members were awarded their own charter school.

Fourth — and perhaps most importantly — for a monopoly to exist as Williams and you maintain, parents would have no option available but conventional public schools for their children’s education. With ‘open’ public school districts, charter schools, private schools and, homeschooling available as options to the majority parents throughout the U.S., there’s simply no evidence to support the argument.

Hey Duane… if you’re going to quote me, you can grant me (and your readers) the courtesy of including the entire quote as to provide proper context.

Your quote stands on its own. If you or readers need ‘proper context’, all they (and you) have to do is scroll up.

–Did you even read the AFT resolution?

One word: Loopholes

RESOLVED, that the AFT oppose legislation to establish charter schools that are not held to the same or higher standards as other public schools, are not held accountable for results, or do not meet AFT criteria; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT assistlocal and state federations in developing criteria to review charter school applications to ensure that such schools are answerable to parents and the public, and work to complement, not undermine, area public schools;

Trust me, there are others. Or maybe I am taking this out of context as well.

Like I been saying, as long as they are in the mix, of course they will be fine with it. Green Dot’s president even acknowledged in an article I just lost (dangit!) that it would be foolish to enter into a market that is 100% unionized and not leave the door open for them.

You agree with Prof. Williams’ rhetorical argument alleging an unspecified gov’t monopoly precludes parents from choosing which schools their children attend. As you’d have readers believe, teachers unions — opposed against charter schools by an implied consensus — use their influence with politicians to nullify public demand on public school choice.

Have I summed up your position correctly?

Teacher unions combined with local government bureaucracy, the nonchalant attitude of many (not all) voters within these districts, parents and students all play a part in this. You decided to keep the conversation hovering over unions and charter schools so I just went along for the ride even though I clearly stated that unions were only part of the problem.

On this site I provided a link to a document that illustrates the many steps that it takes to fire a teacher in New York (99 steps or so). For other districts in other states, the process is also very lengthy. I also talked about the great lengths unions will go to in order to shield their own –regardless of the accusations in most cases. Firing a unionized public school teacher for bad performance is not an easy thing to do. As a result, many schools within under-performing schools get stuck with these types of teachers while better prepared teachers oftentimes opt to teach in the suburbs. The end result? Tax paying parents are left with only one choice for the education of their child. In a private institution, teachers can be fired and replaced without all the red tape found in unions. Private institutions by nature have an incentive to be the best because the survival is based on non-guaranteed tuition. NCLB tried to apply this in the public sector with very questionable results (Teachers teaching the test, social promotions, etc.).

Public schools on average spend between $7k and 12k per student per year. Williams is basically asking in his piece “Why not develop a system where these parents are given that same money to apply towards the school of their choice?” Why continue to funnel tax-payer money into an already proven failed school? And let’s be real here for a moment, even public school teachers in these districts know just how bad the schools are, which is why a significant number of them send their own children to private school (I’ve linked to that study already). Why not expand that privilege to give these tax-paying parents in these districts the ability to funnel money that will be spent on their children in public school to be used in the school of their choice? By denying such a plan on the grounds of ‘separation between church and state’ (in the case if the parent chooses a religious school) is acknowledgment that maintaining the monopoly (not providing parents with choices) is preferred. I say, restrict this only to low-performing school districts and expand it based on its success.

Lastly, the main reason why bad school districts tend to stay bad is because without a system like I described above, they have no real incentive to make it better–only to expand it. Couple that fact with a demographic that will not hold local politicians/school board members to the same account as they do President Bush, the situation will only get worse.