Labor board decides Chicago charter school is really private, subject to private sector laws.

[madfloridian]

I am assuming they will still get public taxpayer money. Yet they will not be subject to any regulation by elected school boards or local districts.

Jersey Jazzman caught the implications of the ruling right away. Reformers like Michelle Rhee et al have repeated over and over that charter schools are public schools. Now it has been ruled that these charters in Chicago are not.

There will be many educators waiting on all the implications of this ruling. I don't see how they can claim to be one thing and be ruled to be something else. Is Arne Duncan aware of this? Does he approve?

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2013/01/its-official-charters-are-not-public.html?spref=tw">It's Official: Charters are NOT Public Schools

The National Labor Relations Board gives its verdict: charter schools are NOT public schools!

Teachers at a Chicago charter school are now subject to private-sector labor laws, rather than state laws governing public workers. The move could impact how public schools are run down the road.

The ruling, made by the National Labor Relations Board last month, said the Chicago Math and Science Academy is a “private entity” and therefore covered under the federal law governing the private sector.

The decision overrules a vote taken by teachers last year to form a union in accordance with the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act. At the time, two-thirds of teachers at the school approved the union and it became official under state law.

...“This case was really about whether you organize via one method or another,” said Andrew Broy, director of the Illinois Network of Charter Schools. “It wasn’t about you can organize at all, whether you can bust unions, or anything like that.”

I believe that is the very same school that last year decided they were private so the teachers could not form a union. Here is what I reported on this last year.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/7356">Chicago charter school claims to be private so teachers won't unionize. Got 23 million public money

Another Chicago charter has claimed it's a "private" school in order to stop its teachers from unionizing. The school has received $23 million in public funds since it opened in 2004. But eight months ago, a solid majority of the school's teachers voted to organize. The school's board, with backing from the charter school association and the Civic Committee, decided to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees in hopes of stalling off union certification.

"In papers filed with the National Labor Relations Board, attorneys for the Chicago Math and Science Academy on the city's North Side say the school should be exempt from an Illinois law that grants employees of all public schools the right to form unions for contract negotiations. -- Tribune"

Teachers report threats by principal, Ali Yilmaz as well as the firing of a popular and well-respected teacher who was part of the union organizing drive.

In the same Trib article, University of Chicago's Tim Knowles is sounding more and more like Wisconsin's Gov. Walker, claiming that collective-bargaining rights for teachers are "a risk to those basic freedoms".

Here is more from the article today at WBEZ91.5.

http://www.wbez.org/news/chicago-charter-school-subject-private-sector-labor-laws-104660">Labor board decision that school is "private entity" may set precedent

In many ways, they are like government contractors, said James Powers, the attorney representing CMSA. A school district signs a contract with a private group, usually a non-profit organization, to run a school and allocates public money based on the number of students served.

But as the charter sector grows in cities across the country, teachers unions and other pro-labor groups have said expanding charters is a “union-busting” tactic.

Charter schools want to be public schools so they can get taxpayer's money. Then they want to be private so teachers can't unionize.

I don't see how charter schools can legitimately have it both ways.

Crossposted at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/02/1175897/-Labor-board-decides-Chicago-charter-school-is-really-private-subject-to-private-sector-laws">Daily Kos

[formercia]

1. Union Busting

and making a lot of loot off of the Taxpayers.

This ought to get interesting.

[Enthusiast]

2. Madfloridian, this stuff makes me sick. Charter schools can have it both ways

because the 'powers that be' have decided against public education and labor representation. These anti-public education forces have near complete control of the nation.

Privatize everything! That way we can have less democracy and more profit! The lesser people should have no say in anything anyway. Then we can return to the social justice standards of the 19th Century. We need to get those debtors prisons going. It will all be so wonderful!

Has the 'radical right' won? They most certainly have. They have most of the government and nearly the entire media. I do not see a way out. We can vote Democrats into office but they often hide their true intentions.

[No Elephants]

3. "usually a non profit' Wrong and misleading

Contrary to popular belief, the term is not "non-profit," which implies profit is non-existent.

The correct term is "not for profit," meaning that the corporation was not organized making a profit.

Education and religion are classic "not for profit" purposes.

It has nothing to do with whether the corporation turns a profit or not.

Plenty of corporations that are legally classed as "for profit" do not turn a profit and, indeed, operate at a loss.

Conversely, plenty of corporations that are class "not for profit" for legal and tax purposes rake in the dough. And said dough usually goes out of the corporation as wages to executives, wages being one of the most secure ways to get money out of a corporation. if the corporation goes bankrupt, lenders get on line behind salary claims.

Despite all of the above, though, most people practically equate "nonprofit" with corporate halo. It ain't necessarily so.

Charter schools want to be public schools so they can get taxpayer's money. Then they want to be private so teachers can't unionize.

What about the point of the ruling, though?

Doesn't everyone who contracts with the government get taxpayer money? Blackwater, Halliburton, Bechtel, whomever.

How is this different?

I am not saying this to support charter schools or union-busting as I dislike both those things. I am, though, puzzled as to how it is different.