Charter Schools Backers Battle Labor Measure

Born of an itch to innovate, California’s fledgling charter schools are fighting what some consider the greatest challenge yet to their independence: a proposed requirement that all staff join local unions.

Hundreds of charter school representatives are expected to rally in Sacramento today against the proposal by Assemblywoman Carole Migden (D-San Francisco), which is sponsored by the state’s largest teachers union, the California Teachers Assn.

“This is pretty much regarded as a neutron bomb,” said charter schools consultant Eric Premack.

Migden’s staff maintains that the potential impact of her effort has been vastly exaggerated, and the union describes the proposal as a straightforward attempt to protect the rights of public school employees to organize.

But both are searching for compromises after the unexpected hurricane of opposition.

“The rights that any charter teacher has right now . . . are just protected by the goodwill of the charter operator,” said union lobbyist Sharon Scott Dow. “That could change in a breath.”

In 1992, the Legislature permitted existence of the first 100 charter schools, promising them freedom from most of the state education code and from local school board rules.

Two bills dealing with charter schools had reached then-Gov. Pete Wilson’s desk that year. One fully preserved union representation, the other did not.

The one Wilson signed--by former state Sen. Gary Hart, now Gov. Gray Davis’ top education advisor--said teachers at schools that converted to charters had to vote on whether they wanted to continue their union affiliation. New charter schools faced no such requirement.

The unions have been trying to regain full rights ever since, and according to the union’s governmental relations director, John Hein, often vociferous union opposition to charters grew solely out of concern over this issue.

Otherwise, “we would’ve been fine with charter schools. We would’ve helped grow them,” Hein said.

Although at least half of California’s 160 charter schools have some union affiliation, charter school supporters say the schools affiliate on their own terms, picking and choosing which aspects of the contracts suit their needs.

Working at a charter school often means bending union rules regarding such seemingly mundane things as schedules, teaching loads and compensation. The schools fiercely guard that liberty.

At one of the state’s first charter schools, Vaughn Next Century Learning Center in Pacoima, teachers initially chose to take a five-year leave of absence from the union, but preserving their union seniority should they return. But a year ago, after a skirmish with United Teachers-Los Angeles over extending that leave, Vaughn’s teachers opted to sever their ties.

A third of the teachers there have voluntarily joined a performance-based pay plan, and all are assigned to classes based on their skills and interests, not seniority. For nonteaching duties, the school decides whether to employ district or private workers. The cafeteria, for instance, is operated under a contract with Host Marriott Corp.

Migden’s bill, AB 842, would “put us right back in the box,” said Principal Yvonne Chan.

However, union lobbyist Dow said amendments to the bill are in the works to ensure that such contract variations remain possible, as long as the staff and the charter school operator agree.

At Bowling Green Charter Complex in south Sacramento, the full union connection was retained from the start.

The relationship began badly, when the union filed an unfair labor practices charge against the school for allegedly violating the contract in myriad ways. Since then, school Director Dennis Mah said the union has proved a helpful ally, particularly in negotiations with the district.

Yet Mah said he believes union affiliation should be a choice, not a mandate, for charters. “If you’re going to get a license to dream, you should be able to dream with as much freedom as possible,” he said.

A new internal study by the National Education Assn., the union’s umbrella group, indicates that charter schools pay about the same as non-charters, and that charter school teachers are happy with their decision, reporting that they enjoy the freedom to teach the way they want.

An earlier survey of Los Angeles Unified School District charters turned up similar results. Teachers there said they worked harder but did so by choice because they felt their efforts were paying off.

But Dow said surveys also have shown that charter schools tend to have younger, less experienced staff than other schools.

“Teachers really like being able to be creative with their students, skip the bureaucracy stuff,” she said. “But an experienced, exemplary teacher, why would they want to give up their working conditions and their job security?”

So far, the Migden bill has been approved by two legislative committees, although some legislators who backed the measure have asked that it be softened before final approval. The bill is expected to be voted on Wednesday in a marathon session of the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Because of the mounting opposition, the bill’s prospects remain uncertain.

Premack, the charter schools consultant, remains optimistic that the measure will not budge out of committee in its current form, while others are not so confident, among them David Patterson. He became a charter school lobbyist in January after six years of handling charter school applications for the state Department of Education.

Patterson, who represents the California Network of Education Charters, has suggested a counterproposal that would allow all charter school staff the option of organizing, but not mandate it.

All eyes are turned toward the governor, whose allegiances would appear to be mixed on the issue.

Davis is a strong union supporter who lists the California Teachers Assn. among his largest campaign contributors. Yet he also considers himself an education reformer and chose Hart as education secretary.

So far, a spokeswoman said, Davis has not taken a position on the bill.