No. 19
April 26, 1999
Lloyd Billingsley & Pamela Riley*

In 1993 California passed a law authorizing charter schools, deregulated schools within the public system that gain freedom from burdensome education codes in return for meeting the goals of their founding "charter." Convinced that charter schools bring about revolutionary change, good for students, parents, and teachers alike, the state legislature expanded that law last year. But after two steps forward, California is poised to take a giant step back.

On April 7, Assemblywoman Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) introduced AB 842, a measure that would make all charter school staff, employees of the sponsor district, and subject to the sponsor district’s collective bargaining agreement.

"It would take away probably the most important freedom that charter schools have," said Eric Premack, director of the Charter Schools Development Center in Sacramento, "It would not only force them to bargain collectively, but to bargain as part of the existing bargaining units," Premack said.

The bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly Education Committee. Two Democrats including the Chairwoman and all the Republicans voted against the measure, which would make charter schools the only public schools subject to mandatory collective bargaining.

Under current laws, teachers and other classified staff vote district-wide on whether they want to be represented or, in the event they already are covered, whether they want to "decertify" or opt out of a previously imposed agreement. Charter school teachers and staff would have no such option.

California charter schools have been enormously innovative in their governance and management/labor arrangements. Educators, California education unions in particular, have expressed the desire for "shared governance" (between bosses, workers, and parents, even students). Charter schools have made that wish a reality with "principal-less" schools and parent/teacher co-ops. Several powerful community organizations (Conservation Corps, Urban League, and Delancey Street in San Francisco, which supports ex-convicts and their families) operate as not-for-profits and sponsor charter schools. Teachers in these schools are employees not of the district but the not-for-profit entity. Boards composed of teachers and other employees govern many charter schools. Because collective bargaining laws create artificial distinctions between bosses (administrators) on the one hand and workers (teachers and other staff) on the other, the more cooperative arrangement of shared governance among professionals would be banned.

"If this passes, we’re dead," said Yvonne Chan, the nationally recognized principal of the Vaughn Next Century Learning Center praised by First Lady Hilary Clinton and members of the U.S. House of Representatives. "If this passes it will be the districts and the unions that run charter schools."

In hearings, not a single supporter of Migden’s bill asked whether California’s current charter law, amended last year, has been good for students. Politics, not the welfare of students proved uppermost on their mind. Glendale Democrat Scott Wildman, a former organizer with United Teachers of Los Angeles, said that the bill "will bring the charter school movement into the regular educational process."

Wildman is right, and that is precisely the problem. The recent NAEP tests placed California virtually at the bottom in reading scores, below Mississippi and Louisiana. Reformers see charter schools as a way to elevate those scores and they place progress above union power.

For example, on April 8, the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) approved six charters, five sponsored by one of the most dynamic community organizations in the nation, the Oakland Organization of Community Organizations (OCO). OCO fought the battle for one of California’s first inner-city charter schools, the Jingletown Academy, a middle school for Latino youngsters. More than 50% of the students, including girls, acknowledge that at one time or another they were members of gangs.

The first five schools are a partnership between the OCO and the School Futures Research Foundation, which operates five other charters in California’s inner cities (Chula Vista, San Diego, Compton, Watts, and East Palo Alto) and several in Washington D.C. SFRF is funded in part by Wal-Mart heir John Walton. This "outside" sponsorship riled the Oakland affiliate of the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teacher union, which floated rumors that, among other things SFRF families and teachers are forced to buy from Wal-Mart.

Oakland indeed is a union town and several OUSD school board members expressed dismay that OCO, one of the most powerful community organizations, was at odds with one of the most powerful unions. As one progressive board member recounted, "I began to think about why I was here . . . it is for the parents and students, for high student performance, small and safe schools, all of which SFRF is giving the community." The same board member went on to list all of his priorities for Oakland children (including toilet paper in the school bathrooms). He ranked all of his concerns above any concerns that were expressed by the teachers and classified unions.

Californians and their legislators should join the Oakland school board in setting their priorities straight. Meeting the needs of students poorly served by the current system takes priority over servicing the demands of teacher unions. Legislators should understand that if the AB 842 counterrevolution succeeds in grinding charter schools under the heel of union power, other reforms are waiting in the wings.

"If this passes," said Yvonne Chan, "we might as well close all charter schools and start fighting for vouchers."

* Lloyd Billingsley is editorial director, and Pamela Riley is the co-director of the Center for School Reform at the Pacific Research Institute.