« Why President Obama Will Not Appoint Judge Sotomayor | Main | Prop. 8 Redux? »
Friday, May 15, 2009
The upcoming battle over New York's public schools
For Albany watchers and other political junkies, the summer’s biggest sporting event is the State Assembly’s impending decision about whether to renew mayoral control of New York City’s schools. The vote is scheduled for the end of June, and, to insure maximum high drama, the vote coincides with Bloomberg’s third-term re-election campaign and precedes the October expiration of the American Federation of Teacher’s contract with the New York Board of Education.
With the stars thus aligned, the conditions are perfect for some serious political horse-trading between the AFT and Bloomberg. But whose interest will be put on the auction block? I’m betting that charter schools are in trouble. The AFT has consistently opposed charter schools unless they are union-sponsored, because they are not subject to the 165-page collective bargaining agreement governing New York City’s regular public school teachers. Charter schools are popular with low-income, mostly minority parents precisely because they are free from lockstep seniority requirements, procrustean work rules, and interminable processes for teacher dismissal and discipline. (Charter school teachers, incidentally are ambivalent about these rules, which are not exactly conducive to innovative teaching). Given that low-income parents are not exactly one of the state’s powerhouse lobbies, I’d suspect that their interest in charters – say, lifting the cap on the numbers of charters that can be issued -- will not be reflected in the impending deal on mayoral control.
My prediction that charter schools will be losers in Albany might seem odd, given their popularity with a broad spectrum of interests -- lefty papers like the Village Voice; Joel Klein, the City’s education chancellor; and even Arne Duncan, Obama’s Secretary of Education. But my wager is these essentially ideological and technocratic supporters will be no match for the AFT. Randi Weingarten, the AFT’s national President, has long mastered the art of embracing cautious reform-style language while capping charters’ numbers and cutting their budgets behind the scenes. If Bloomberg wants to run up the score against William Thompson in the upcoming mayoral election (and, of course, he does), then he would be wise to roll over on Klein for the AFT.
Just in case it is not obvious, I am rooting for the charter schools. But, not being a chump, I am betting dollars to rupees on Randi Weingarten and the AFT.
Posted by Rick Hills on May 15, 2009 at 06:36 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef01156f958b2c970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The upcoming battle over New York's public schools:
Comments
Ditto what Patrick said. I somehow doubt parents compare a collective bargaining agreement with whatever the employee handbook says at a given charter school and say, "by gum, I prefer the latter for MY kid."
Posted by: Joseph Slater | May 16, 2009 2:04:07 PM
One might infer from my comment that Charter schools are not "public:" they are of course part of the public education system (both of our children--now adults--attended an excellent charter school and our son is now employed there).
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | May 15, 2009 7:44:26 PM
"Charter schools are popular with low-income, mostly minority parents precisely because they are free from lockstep seniority requirements, procrustean work rules, and interminable processes for teacher dismissal and discipline."
Is there sufficient empirical evidence to confirm the conclusion that these are the precise reasons for the popularity of Charter schools among "low-income, mostly minority parents?" In our neck of the woods (southern California), I suspect (based on testimonial/anecdotal evidence) there are other reasons, most parents knowing very little about such procedures and rules, although they've often come to fairly passionate conclusions about how public schools have failed to serve the educational needs of their children and do see Charter schools as an accessible alternative to largely unaffordable (i.e., without substantial financial assistance) private schools. (I'm otherwise ignorant as to the differences, if any, between Charter schools in New York city and those out here on the West coast.)
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | May 15, 2009 7:26:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.