They might not know it. They might keep going for a while, oblivious to the fact of their own death. But recent news from Chicago makes me wonder if charter schools are effectively dead.
Here’s what we know: According to Chalkbeat, a series of walkouts and threats of walkouts in Chicago has compelled charter networks to change their tunes. They will pay teachers the same salaries as public-school teachers. They will cap class sizes. They will add better services for special-ed students and English Language Learners. And they will add counselors to their staffs.
All this is good news for students and families, but it seems like very bad news for the idea of charter schools. When charter schools are subject to the same oversight as public schools, they no longer can claim the same freedom from red tape that has been the hallmark of charter schools.
Some charter-school enthusiasts are accusing teachers’ unions of killing charter schools. As Curmudgucrat Peter Greene explains, lobbyists like Jeanne Allen are pointing the finger at unions for effectively ending the thirty-year run of charter school experimentation.
That’s true in one sense, and false in another. Yes, by organizing teachers and insisting on better conditions for students in charter schools, unions are preventing charter-school administrators from cutting corners and offering shoddy schools.
But teacher protests would not be effective if they didn’t articulate real problems. No one would support teachers who threatened to strike over quibbles. The problems in Chicago’s charters—like the problems in public AND charter schools nationwide—are real and desperate.
So here’s the question for this morning: Did Chicago’s teachers just drive a stake through the heart of the charter-school dream? And good riddance? Will the corpse wiggle around for a while, but without the freedom to impose sub-standard conditions on students? Or will these stories just drive charter-supporters to build bigger legislative walls around their schools?