The charter school meeting hosted by the Maine Association of Charter Schools did indeed make clear that charters are relevant and that they are likely to happen. The 50 or so folks gathered on Thursday represented a very broad spectrum - legislators, school superintendents and potential charter school operators.
What was most exciting about the meeting is the degree to which folks who might not be seen as allies on most issues were able to find genuine common ground on the need to innovate. I spoke with a newly elected Republican legislator and a long-time liberal activist who were agreeing word for word with each other on how a well-structured charter law could help meet the needs of the young people in their very similar towns.
What continues to be discouraging is the lack of sophistication of some of the public debate surrounding charters, which came through quite loudly in the Portland Press Herald's article. My problem here is not with Mr. Stone's reporting - he has to report what is being said, and did a much better job of highlighting some of the many variables, rather than just perpetuating the myths.
One such myth that is perpetuated here is that charters schools are necessarily non-union schools. As I've written elsewhere, the issue is considerably more nuanced. The language in the MACS law, for instance, ensures that TEACHERS have the choice to unionize if THEY feel that's in their best interests. I've also proposed that contracts be portable, so that current teachers can make the choice to teach in a public charter without jeopardizing benefits.
But if charter schools are becoming more relevant, Chris Galgay sure is doing everything he can to ensure that the union he represents, the MEA, becomes less so.
It is both sad for Maine's teachers and their students that someone like Mr. Galgay has the bully pulpit on this. "Charter schools haven't even proven successful, Galgay said." What is he so afraid of that he's willing to sacrifice his own credibility and that of his organization on something that can so easily be shown to false? One fact is that some charters have "proven successful" and some have not. Another is that those of us who prefer substance to slogans are increasingly able to identify and replicate the conditions that lead to more successful charters and fewer unsuccessful ones. On that count, Mr. Galgay's substitution of fear for fact is no different than those who managed to get quoted saying that "don't ask, don't tell" will "impair unit cohesion" when the evidence indicates the effect, if any, will be a POSITIVE one.
To be clear - I'm NOT an advocate of charter schools at all costs, and in fact have been consistently critical of some approaches to chartering schools. I just think the debate should be a real one. Who knows...perhaps he even believes it when he says, "We'll support anything we think is good for public education in this state." But I sure would like to see some recent evidence of a public stance taken by the MEA that correlates in any way with better results for students.
My advice for the MEA is to develop a far more nuanced position that will enable their legitimate concerns to be part of the debate, so that the next time Mr. Galgay has a chance to comment, he can position his union as part of the solution. As one Democratic legislator told me, "we should have separated ourselves from that kind of rhetoric a while ago - it probably cost us the election." Or, in the words of a Democrat likely to have a significant say on what an actual charter bill looks like, "The union needs to get over it. Folks who care about education in this state either need to get on this bus, or it's going to run us over."
He's right. Quite honestly, we know ALL we need to know to create a "best in the nation" charter law. Those who seek to bust unions or use a charter law to undermine public schools will have to give a little. And those who seek to treat teaching and/or operating public schools as a closed-shop entitlement are going to have to give some too. To MACS credit, they have already incorporated significant additional checks and balances into their draft law.
I, for one, hope to employ union teachers in the charter schools my organization will operate - and would be happy to meet with the MEA to share the excellent work being done by the unions that have chosen collaboration over obstruction. It may be that Mr. Galgay would prefer to cede those teachers who choose to work in charters to the AFT or another union - he certainly would not be the first union leader to cling to long-obsolete ideas as his membership jumps ship. But at the very least, he might consider reading up a little before dismissing charters, and all those PUBLIC school teachers who work in them, as cavalierly as he does.
The opportunity to put kids ahead of politics is here, and the folks in that room on Thursday are committed to finding a way to make it happen. If we base our law on what works, rather than what we're afraid of, a few years from now we'll see that the sky has not fallen.
No comments:
Post a Comment