Sadly,  innovative, student-based charter schools may soon be a thing of the past in Chicago.

    According to Catalyst-Chicago.org, three Chicago International charter schools have already unionized, and are close to finalizing the first collective bargaining contract for charter teachers iu that city. Meanwhile , the local charter school teachers union, which is affiiliated with the AFT, is tying to spread the union virus to other charter schools in the city.

  To aid in this effort, the local union is trying to convince the Chicago City Council to pass a resolution declaring the city a “union friendly town” and asking charter school administrators to sit quietly during efforts to organize their schools.

   The proposed resolution also has a provision recognizing charter school teachers as public employees who work under the rules of the Illinois Education Labor Relations Board. That board allows teachers unions to organize a school if  more than half of the teaching staff signs union membership cards.

    O;pponents argue that charter teachers are really employees of the private management companies that run the schools, and therefore work under the rules of the National Labor Relations Board. That board only recognizes union organization of a school if teachers were allowed to vote on the issue by private ballot.

    While the city resolution would not have the practical effect of law, it would be one more nail in the coffin of the charter school movement in Chicago.

    One of the main reasons charter schools are successful is because they don’t have to deal with the nuisance of teachers unions. There is no built-in, permanent anomosity between teachers and administrators. There is no haggling about rewarding great teachers and getting rid of bad ones. There is no negotiating with the union over curriculum. And there are no threats top strike every time a union contract runs out.

     Now there appears to be a concerted effort to force Chicago charters to deal with all of those headaches, just like traditional public schools. And the teachers in the charter schools may not have a real voice about whether to unionize. There is a very big difference between casting a private ballot, and having 12 union organizers standing at your door, staring you down as they wait for you to sign your union card.

   Card check is nothing more than a cheap union bullying scheme, designed to force teachers and other workers into a union against their will. The fact that three Chicago aldermen have already expressed support for usiing card check to unionize charter schools means there’s an underlying hostility at city hall toward charter schools.

    The AFT is sure to exploit this hostility to the fullest in its effort to infiltrate and destroy Chicago’s charter schools. That’s a shame, because inner-city children probably need fresh education options more than any other kids.

    Here’s hoping that some common-sense thinkers will get involved in this debate before it’s too late, and rescue the charter school concept in one of our nation’s greatest cities.

       The irony of the week comes from the Michigan Education Association, powerful subgroup of the National Education Association, which somehow found the nerve this week to criticize the concept of government-run health care.

     A headline in the Sept. 22 edition of MEA Voice Online screams to members, “State run health plans known for deficits, mismanagement.”

       Um, isn’t that exactly what the Republicans have been saying about Obamacare for months? But how does that jive with the NEA’s enthusiastic support of the government-run, single-payer health care system that the White House would prefer?

       Remember, the NEA has donated at least $500,000 to the effort to sell the concept of government health care to the American people. Yet its Michigan branch insists that government-run health care is debt-ridden and mismanaged.

      Which is it, folks? Inquiring minds want to know.

      Actually, there’s an interesting story behind the MEA’s sudden aversion to government-run health care.

     The MEA has been shaking in its boots for the past several months, ever since Michigan Speaker of the House Andy Dillon, a moderate Democrat, proposed moving all state employees, including teachers and other school employees, into a single state-run health insurance plan.

    The MEA immediately cried foul, complaining that Dillon’s proposal would take away their divine right to negotiate health care benefits with school boards at contract time.

    Why is that right so important to the MEA? Well, in Michigan, the teachers union long ago created its own insurance company, known by the acronym of MESSA. It provides very thorough coverage, at a very high price to school districts.

    For years, MEA teachers have insisted on having MESSA coverage written into their colletive bargaining agreements. But lately many school boards have been trying to escape MESSA, because they’re all but broke and can no longer afford that type of coverage for teachers.

    When school boards threaten to dump MESSA, local unions typically respond with sidewalk protests, obnoxious behavior at school baord meetings, recall petitions against board members and threats to strike.

     Why all the fuss? Because MESSA  has an excess earnings account of about $360 million, and transfers big chunks of that money directly to the union every year.

    So if all school employees were put into a single, state-run insurance group, MESSA would be dead and the union would lose its treasured cash cow.

    So now the MEA leadership wants to scare its rank-and-file members into opposing Dillon’s insurance plan with the argument that government can’t run a health care program. Perhaps they feel the federal government would do just fine, but the state government couldn’t pull it off.

   We’ll let them sort all of that out.

    All we know is that we’ve talked to dozens of school superintendents throughout Michigan, and they all tell us the same thing – their districts could save hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, if they were allowed to dump MESSA and seek competitive bids for health insurance.

    For that reason, we very much like Speaker Dillon’s plan.

     The latest evidence that liberals and conservatives are coming together on the need for education reform was on display last week, when former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and the Rev. Al Sharpton appeared together in Washington D.C. for the world premiere of the new documentary, “Two Million Minutes: The 21^st Century Solution.”

    We borrowed the following information from Lee Bailey’s EURweb.com to describe the film and the event.

    The film, produced by entrepreneur Robert A. Compton, is a sequel to his 2007 internationally acclaimed documentary “Two Million Minutes – A Global Examination.” It examined six high school students from the U.S., India and China and demonstrated that the Asian students were far more advanced than their American counterparts.

    The new film explores an American charter school, BASIS, in Tucson, Arizona, that teaches average high school students at a high academic level, and shows how those students, faced with increased expectations, are very capable of succeeding.

     “(The new film) beautifully demonstrates that American students are capable of competing academically with the best in the world given the right curriculum, the right teachers and the right inspiration and expectations for success,” the Eur Web article said.

     Gingrich said the screening of the film, and his joint appearance with Sharpton, presented a great opportunity to promote necessary change in public education.

     “This is one of the most important events I will participate in all year,” the former speaker was quoted as saying. “Education reform is crucial to America’s success, and Compton’s films bring the issues and solutions into light. I implore every American to watch these films and demand change. Our future depends on it.” 

    Gingrich and Sharpton will soon embark on a three-city tour to promote inner-city school reform. More power to you, gentlemen. You are setting an outstanding example of how we should put political differences aside when it comes to serving our nation’s children.

    Earlier this year Robert Chanin, the recently retired general counsel for the National Education Association, discussed the effectiveness of teachers unions at a gathering in San Diego.

    “Despite what some of us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas,” Chanin said. “It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child.

    “NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.”

    Chanin’s honesty was refreshing. For too long the NEA, as well as the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), have been hiding their true intentions behind the guise of student advocacy, using children as human shields to block political criticism.

    But the truth is that the NEA and AFT are huge national labor unions with political agendas, and have a great deal of influence with state and national lawmakers.

    It’s important for the American people to understand how they use that power to obstruct desperately-needed educational reforms. They oppose increased teacher accountability, merit pay, charter schools, tenure reform, vouchers and other worthwhile initiatives, regardless of their potential benefits.

     They fear reform will threaten their guaranteed clientele of students, as well as their tenure-based job security and lucrative benefits. Their agenda has little to do with providing the best possible education for children. It’s about preserving the status quo and their powerful position within the education establishment.

    The unions’ militant strategy is putting them at odds with leaders of both political parties. Many Democrats, including President Obama, have joined Republicans in calling for fundamental changes in public education.

    Last year NEA members stood in stunned silence at their national convention when Obama called for merit pay. They booed Education Secretary Arne Duncan earlier this year when he called for more teacher accountability.

    And political isolation only increases their determination.

    Consider their position on charter schools. The unions tried kill charters in their infancy, but now that it’s clear they’re here to stay, the NEA and AFT have a new strategy. 

    They’re recruiting charter school teachers  as members, so the new schools will be plagued with the same labor upheaval that has damaged so many traditional schools. The goal is death by infiltration.

    “It is reasonable to believe that as more charters are faced with having to be more like traditional public schools. . .many of them will dry up,” wrote Keith Johnson, president of the Detroit Federation of Teachers.

    In our research for our websites, NEAexposed.com and AFTexposed.com, we have discovered many other examples of union anti-reform efforts.

    The NEA recently wrote to every U.S. senator, warning that they would be held politically accountable if they voted to reauthorize D.C.’s successful Opportunity Scholarship Program, a voucher initiative designed to help inner-city children escape failing schools.

     In Detroit Public Schools, the AFT threatened to strike when the emergency financial manager called for teacher merit pay and an end to the seniority system.

    In Wisconsin, the NEA is using its political clout to block legislation that would allow teacher evaluations to be linked to student performance. Obama won’t provide education stimulus dollars to states that refuse to link the two, but that doesn’t bother the union.

   The battle lines are drawn. Reasonable leaders from both parties are calling for changes in education, while the unions are using their political muscle to defend an outdated system.

    It’s time for the American people to check into this debate, and demand education policies that  benefit our students, not the self-serving teachers unions.

   Among the many education reform ideas catching on across the country, scrapping the seniority system for teachers is among the most popular.

    In the Detroit school district earlier this summer, the state-appointed emergency financial manager called for an end to the industrial-style seniority system, so teachers could be compensated and retained based on performance, not length of tenure.

    The suggestion drew a predictable reaction from the president of the Detroit chapter of the AFT, who threatened a strike if the district pressed the issue. There’s been little talk of the idea since then.

    But the school committee  (another term for school board) in East Providence R.I. seems a bit more serious about the concept. In ongoing contract talks with the local chapter of the NEA, the committee has been pressing for an end to seniority as the sole criteria for judging teacher worthiness.

    Union leaders, like those in Detroit, have responded by clinging to this harmful relic of the past, insisting on protecting their own hides at the expense of younger, more energetic teachers.

     It appears the union would be foolish to assume that the school committee will quietly drop this demand. Over the past year the committee has taken a very tough stance on contract issues, cutting teacher salaries 5 percent across the board and forcing them to pay for 20 percent of their health care costs.

   Now the school committee wants to reinforce the concept of quality education by judging and paying teachers at least partially based on their most recent performance. There would be safeguards built in, with peers, parents and students all playing roles in teacher evaluations.

   There’s a lot to be said for this approach, and we’re willing to bet East Providence will not be the last school district to press the issue. An editorial from the Brown Daily Herald summed the situation up perfectly:

    “Teachers’ talents are as varied as the needs of their students, and a system that compensates instructors as if they were assembly-line workers does a disservice to the entire community. Simply put, students suffer when their teachers treat their job as a clock-punching routine. Most teachers don’t, out of dedication to their profession, but seniority-first systems protect those who do and discourage the majority from doing their best in the classroom.”

    The editorial went on to warn the union that it should accept the diverse evaluation idea, with peers, students and parents playing a role, while the offer is still on the table.

    “(The union) can ensure that seniority, instead of being scrapped entirely, assumes its rightful role as one criterion among many. That way, teachers won’t have to come to school knowing the official measure of their worth is the number of years they’ve spent in front of the blackboard, but they will know those years of service won’t be forgotten.”

    Nicely put, Brunonians. We expect to be addressing this very serious issue again very soon.

    Is the AFT trying to prey on the irrational fear and loathing that some ignorant Americans harbor toward people from other countries?

   Would the union really stoop quite that low? According to a piece in the Colorado Independent, it would seem so.

    A new report issued by the union, entitled “Importing Educators,” tells us that the number of foreign-born teachers in the U.S. rose from approximately 14,000 to about 19,000 between 2002 and 2007.

      On one hand, the report uncovers a few scenarios where foreign educators were lured to the U.S. under false pretenses and were treated poorly by the agencies that recruited them. We join the AFT in condemning those situations.

    But the union also appears to be troubled by the concept of non-Americans teaching our children, and by the amount of money they’re willing to work for.

    To that, we can only say that we’re not willing to pass judgment on the qualifications of any educator, simply based on their country of origin.

     As writer Katie Redding of the Independent put it, “Curiously, what the report doesn’t address is the impact of the trend on learning. It’s hard to be alarmed when readers don’t understand if this trend is hurting or helping American students.”

     If all the reports about foreign countries kicking our butts in student achievement are true, perhaps this trend is a good thing.

    As for the idea of foreign teachers working for less money than unionized American teachers – well, what does the AFT expect?

    Public schools throughout the nation are struggling to remain financially afloat, yet everywhere we look we find  teachers unions continuing to demand higher wages and expensive benefits, with no regard for the financial plight of their employers.

     As a taxpayer, I would tell my local school board the following: If union teachers aren’t willing to play a role in helping the school survive the current economic crisis, then perhaps we should look elsewhere for teachers.  I don’t care if they come from Tibet, Indonesia or the Arctic Circle, as long as they put kids first, take their responsibilities seriously and work for a wage that the district can afford.

    The faculty at Rutgers University (AFT)  is demonstrating why college instructors are college instructors, and K-12 public school teachers are not.

     Union leaders in K-12 schools across the nation continue to fight for salary increases and expensive benefits, despite the obvious fact that their employers are in deep financial trouble. They demand that school boards drop programs like athletics and transportation, so the districts can afford to finance their selfish list of demands.

    They even stand aside and allow their younger colleagues to lose their jobs through layoffs, rather than accept a few concessions that might allow younger teachers to hang on. School administrators across the nation refer to this trend as the unions “eating their young.”

    But according to MyCentralJersey.com, the instructors at Rutgers recently demonstrated that labors unions do not have to remain oblivious to serious financial realities.

    They recently voted to defer their negotiated salary increases, due to the university’s precarious  budget situation. The professors will still receive their full salary increases by the time their contract expires in 2011, but their willingness to defer their raises will save the school millions of dollars in the meantime.

    What a breath of fresh air from a union comprised of professional educators. The Rutgers professors have chosen to participate in a team effort to address the university’s problems, instead of focusing on a narrow, selfish agenda.

    We hope their unselfish example is noticed and emulated by teachers unions throughout the nation, at the college and K-12 level.

    But we’re willing to bet that the Rutgers model will draw official scorn and condemnation from MEA and AFT officials throughout the nation, who view any type of compromise or cooperation with school administrators as a form of surrender.

    Everywhere we look, evidence is growing that public education reform is no longer a one-party issue. More and more prominent Democrats are joining Republicans in calling for fundamental changes in the way our public schools operate, with an emphasis on increased teacher accountability.

    Who’s the top Democrat leading the call for change in education? None other than President Barack Obama, who said he will grant none of the $4.5  billion available in education stimulus money to states that refuse to link student achievement to individual teacher evaluations.

    Only the nation’s two largest teachers unions – the NEA and AFT – are still bucking the trend and militantly defending the status quo, despite the growing body of evidence that our current system does not work very well for our students.

    But the unions are still a very powerful force in the Democratic Party, and they’re using their influence to prevent Democratic lawmakers throughout the nation from joining forces with Obama and his education allies.

    In Wisconsin, for instance, bills were recently introduced in the both chambers of the state legislature to drop the ban on linking student achievement to teacher evaluations. Both bills would simply allow local school boards to determine their own policies on the matter.

    But the bills are being bottled up, without discussion or debate, by the Democratic majorities in both chambers, according to “thenorthwestern.com.”

     Apparently some Democrats are torn between their president’s call for desperately needed reform, and the millions of campaign dollars they stand to gain or lose from the teachers unions. In some quarters, like the Wisconsin state legislature, the dollars are apparently trumping the president.

     So much for change we can all believe in.