"Hyperbole, passion and spin have often trumped fairness, moderation and neutrality." That's how a Los Angeles Times reporter characterized the dispute between the Los Angeles Unified School District and the teachers union leading up to last week's crippling strike. The union seeks to pin the problems of the school system on charters, which offer valuable education choices, are popular with parents and generally benefit minority and poor children.
How long the strike will last is unclear. The two sides are close on salary but not on issues such as class size; additional counselors, nurses and other support staff; and more teacher control over school spending and testing.
The union, casting the impasse as "a struggle over the future of public education," has taken direct aim at the charters, largely non-union, which enroll about 1 in 5 of all L.A. public school students. The union wants a cap on their growth, along with stricter regulation. Trotted out is the now-familiar and phony trope about charters "draining" or "siphoning" money from public schools.
Charters are public schools. In California, they are operated by nonprofit organizations, and the money they receive is public per-pupil funding that follows students. It is not the district's money, nor the union's money; it is the students' money. Charters must be held accountable. But whose interest would be served by capping their growth and inhibiting their operations? Not the children's.
Editorial on 01/20/2019