1.) KIPP Academy in the Bronx has been unionized since inception. Is it doing noticeably worse than other KIPP schools?

2.) Why is it that union-busting is ok to suggest? Have we learned nothing from the Pinkerton guards? Is it completely out of the realm of possibility that the school could successfully negotiate with unionized teachers?

Update: Matt Ladner calls me out as a teachers’ union apologist. Perhaps. But I think the specter Matt describes isn’t likely here because of this leverage question. Having looked closely at this issue from a couple of perspectives I’d say that the first generation contracts will not be onerous at all. It’s the second and third generation effects that are unknown and important for charter schools to think through. Yet there is risk there for the teachers’ unions, too. Namely dilution. The more reformist agreements they sign onto and the more common the portfolio approach to contracts becomes then the harder it gets to defend a lot of the work rules that exist in many places. And, it’s possible to envision a scenario where they become sort of like AAA. People sign up for services they like but are largely ignorant of the organization’s public policy positions and advocacy. There is some of that going on now as it is. That could mean several things, good and bad, for education politics.

The feds have a workaround as well. They’ll do their best to pass these types of laws under powers obtained from the 14th amendment if possible. The courts have established that the 14th trumps the 11th. That’s why FMLA legislation relied heavily on “discrimatory” justifications for ensuring equal access to leave by males and females. Framing it that way got them past the 11th amendment hurdle.

The Commerce Clause it out of style because the 11th trumps it. The 14th trumps the 11th.