Charter school laws guarantee an academically driven school in exchange for legal, fiscal and operational freedom. Academic success is the lynchpin for charter school success. If they do not meet the terms of their contract they can be closed; so the existence of the school depends on the school's ability to attract and maintain the best-qualified teachers. With so much importance on the quality of instruction, it's important that charter schools and teachers are able to negotiate a contract that attracts the best teaching candidates and assures the best quality of instruction possible.

        Twenty-four of the existing 35 states with a charter school law allow teachers to choose how they will negotiate their contacts with the charter school. Whether teachers are part of the district collective bargaining agreement or negotiate separately is a professional choice they are free to make. The remaining nine state laws deny teachers and charter schools the opportunity to negotiate a mutually beneficial contract, the teachers must remain part of the district collective bargaining agreement.

        The choice afforded teachers in most states allows for professional arrangements that benefit the teaching profession by rewarding merit and achievement. This approach promotes innovative and accountable personnel policies that attract qualified professionals to the field, which, in turn, benefits public education as a whole. It's a large reason why charter schools are popular among teachers, parents, and their host communities.

        The impact of this practice is only beginning to be understood. For example, in Arizona, charter schools report that the entry salary range for teachers is nearly 3 times more flexible, with a range of about $8,000 in districts and approximately $21,000 in charter schools. Teachers are also negotiating performance incentives into their contracts. Similar developments appear in California, Minnesota and other charter school states where the topic is being investigated.

        The union's reaction is another indicator of progress. While teachers love it, their political representation hates it! It destroys the seniority-based-job-security-schemes that they have imposed on our public schools and replaces it with merit based accountability. So they are working to stop the progress by rhetoric and legislation.

        In the April 1999 edition of NEA Today, National Education Association (NEA) General Counsel Michael D. Simpson writes a demonizing article on charter school personnel policies that ignores the growth of merit/achievement based contracts, and praises the status quo of unions dictating employment policies:

In many states, charter employees forfeit their right to bargain. And, in almost all states, they lose their right to tenure and due process. They become what lawyers call "employees at will," who can be fired at any time for any reasons. In the vast majority of states, charter schools are exempt from state tenure or continuing contract laws. This means that these schools can fire or non-renew teachers without having "just cause" or some other legitimate reason related to job performance or conduct.

        Simpson's logic is flawed and his facts are wrong. That "charter schools are exempt from state tenure or continuing contract laws" does not lead to "schools can fire or non-renew teachers without having just cause or some other legitimate reason related to job performance or conduct." His logic only works when one assumes that teachers either remain in the district's collective bargaining agreements or do nothing at all. However, it is far from not "nothing at all." Teachers in charter schools are developing merit/achievement-based contracts. For example, in St. Paul, Minnesota, the St. Paul Family Learning Center Charter Schools ties personnel pay to demonstrated proficiencies.

        In addition to its rhetoric the NEA is also engaged on the legislative front. They are busy at work in states that are trying to pass their first charter school law, and in states that already have laws. The strategy: scare the public and then misuse their trust to redefine the debate. NEA president Bob Chase does this by magnifying racial fears and concerns about outlaw schools, then re-defining a "strong law" to fit his agenda. [The comments in brackets and italics belong to the author.]

Weak charter schools laws fail to provide for even the most rudimentary public oversight, can open the door to increased segregation of minority or special needs students and can result in a degradation of standards for the teaching profession. [In his eyes, and only his eyes] a strong charter school law should include these minimal requirements:

… School admission must be open to all students. [They are.]

… Schools must submit to rigorous fiscal and academic accounting. [They do.]

… Teachers must be certified professionals, and have a collective say over their working conditions and rights. [A strong law allows teachers the option.]

… Schools must share what they learn, to promote improvements in other public schools. [We call this the ripple effect, if traditional district schools want to compete with the charter schools they must offer programs that are as good or better.]

-- Bob Chase, "NEA Calls for Stronger Charter School Laws", U.S. Newswire, April 12, 1999.

        The NEA and their union colleagues are using "scare and re-define" tactics to weaken charter school bills in Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Nebraska, and Maine. They are also busy in states with a charter school law that grants teachers the choice of bargaining agreements.

        In California, State Senator Carole Migden introduced a bill (AB 842) that makes charter schools the only public schools subject to MANDATORY collective bargaining. If passed, it would kill charter schools in CA. Susan Cornell, a Fenton Avenue Charter School teacher (Lake View Terrace, CA), told the LA Daily News (04.8.99) how the bill would stifle her schoolıs personnel accountability and drive. "We choose our class size. We choose class assignments based on whatıs best for the kids, not seniority." In San Fernando, CA, the Vaughn Next Century Learning Center has gone from a drug plagued, academically failing elementary school to a National Blue Ribbon School since converting to a charter school in 1993. Much of the success is due to the popular teacher contracts that tie student achievement to teacher pay. AB 842 would kill the program.

        In New York, Senator Nicholas Spano introduced a bill (S03681) that requires all employees of a charter school to be members of the same collective bargaining unit as employees of the school district. If passed this would suppress teacher accountability and innovative personnel policies in NY charter schools before the first one opens its doors.

        Indeed, New York's Unified Federation of Teachers is resistant to change and this puts them in an uncomfortable position. One unnamed UFT member told the Christian Science Monitor (4.20.99) that any claim that the union makes of championing reform is hollow. Pointing to the UFT's resistance to charter schools he says, "There's a real change at the grass roots level, and the union doesnıt know how to respond."

        In Ohio, The Ohio Federation of Teachers have threatened to sue the state over charter schools this April, labeling them the "leading threat" to public schools. Of course, they cannot clearly articulate why they are such a threat.

        Merit/achievement based personnel policies may be one of the most significant reforms that charter schools bring to public education and the teaching profession. They will dismantle the seniority-based-job-security-schemes that unions have worked so hard to build, but that defeat public school accountability and, as a result, have compromised the quality of our public schools.