People who read this blog know that I am not a fan of the large charter school networks that exist in the US at the moment. As a resident of Brooklyn I hear about the local ones quite a bit: Success Academy, Uncommon Schools, Achievement First, and more. Probably one of the biggest reasons I dislike these networks is that they consistently get into legal trouble and often try to alternate between defining themselves as public schools with more freedom and private schools with lower tuitions (i.e. none). This battle may have become more decided than ever last Tuesday when the National Labor Relations Board decided that charter schools are not public schools but, in fact, private corporations.
This has been a strange definitions battle for years where opponents of charters have tried to label them as private entities and charter advocates keep emphasizing that they are public. It's particularly strange, however, when a charter organization lobbies for the label of private. In 2013 there was an amicus brief filed by the California Charter Schools Association stating that "nonprofit operators of charter schools are 'private' entities and not a public entity" (p. 9). It was apparently being used to allow certain policies to stay in place. The issue is: you can't have it both ways in accordance with the law.
So, this most recent determination has short-term and long-term outcomes. Short-term it means that employees wishing to unionize will do so under the National Labor Relations Act instead of under state laws (as public employees would). Long-term, it might erode some of the standing that larger networks have when they try to label themselves incorrectly.
I'm really curious to see where this will lead.
This has been a strange definitions battle for years where opponents of charters have tried to label them as private entities and charter advocates keep emphasizing that they are public. It's particularly strange, however, when a charter organization lobbies for the label of private. In 2013 there was an amicus brief filed by the California Charter Schools Association stating that "nonprofit operators of charter schools are 'private' entities and not a public entity" (p. 9). It was apparently being used to allow certain policies to stay in place. The issue is: you can't have it both ways in accordance with the law.
So, this most recent determination has short-term and long-term outcomes. Short-term it means that employees wishing to unionize will do so under the National Labor Relations Act instead of under state laws (as public employees would). Long-term, it might erode some of the standing that larger networks have when they try to label themselves incorrectly.
I'm really curious to see where this will lead.
RSS Feed
