A NY Times news article poises the following issue:
Here is my question: if this really improved the charter schools, why does it have to be forced on the schools?
But the unionization effort raises questions about whether unions will strengthen the charter movement by stabilizing its young, often transient teaching force, or weaken it by preventing administrators from firing ineffective teachers and imposing changes they say help raise achievement, like an extended school year. . . . .
Here is my question: if this really improved the charter schools, why does it have to be forced on the schools?
Related Posts
So why do younger people view Obama so positively?On issues such as Social Security reform, on labor market regulations, and what he is going to do on the national debt,- Federal Government Moves to Prevent For-Profit Schools from Getting Student AidThe Department of Education is moving to stop Student Aid to For-profit schools. Is it surprising that students going
- The revolution in Louisiana's education systemIn a couple of years Louisiana will have a pretty amazing educational system. The Milton Friedman Foundation put this
- Taxpayers pay $129 million to cover the time of union workers to negotiate over their benefitsWhy can't unionized workers cover the costs of negotiations on their own time?The cost of official time used by federal
- Corruption over state college admissions"The scandal adds to the state's reputation for rampant political corruption." From the WSJ:Two University of Illinois
- The new Florida governor is pushing hard for educational vouchersThe Florida Supreme Court is filled with leftwing liberals who want to protect the teacher unions, but hopefully Rick S
Move to unionize charter schools
4/
5
Oleh
abudzar
