1

Undoing manufactured consent:Union organizing of charter schools in predominately latino/a

communitiesTheresa Montaño and Lynne Aoki

Introduction

The inspiration for the original chapter came from a former

student’s critique of public education’s failure to provide

Chicano/ai students a Chicano-centered curriculum. He praised

schools like Academia Semillas Del Pueblo (California), and Calli

Olin and Toltecalli High School Academies (both in Arizona) as

“examples of culturally responsive schools,” and argued that

charter schools were the only alternative to the “monolinguistic

curriculum” offered by public schools. (Arenas, 2009). This

Chicano student was not alone in concluding that charter schools

were the only educational milieu conducive to the “promotion of a

positive self image for Chicanos and Mexicanos.” Some in the

Chicana/o community are convinced that the attainment of a

quality culturally and linguistically responsive education can

only happen in charter schools. The sudden increase of charter

2

schools in Latina/o communities and the promotion of charters by

Latino/a civil rights organizations like National Council for La

Raza (NCLR) are examples of this education reform agenda. Janet

Murguia (2004) executive director of the largest Latino/a civil

rights group in the United States advanced the following idea,

“many of our children are not graduating or getting the attention

that they require at traditional public schools” and that

“community-based public charter schools” can provide the

“extended curricula and innovative training programs that create

the kind of familial environment in which students feel motivated

to learn and succeed” (p.1) .

What are the Motives for Establishing Charters in the Latino/a

Community?

Several researchers (Darling-Hammond & Montgomery, 2008;

Stuart Wells, 2002: Ravitch, 2010) have argued that charter

schools were established to 1) aid in the deliberate and

systematic dismantling of public education in favor of a market-

based, corporate-controlled and owned system of schooling and, 2)

to free educators from the constraints of a highly-managed

bureaucracy that has been less than successful in educating poor

3

and minority children. It can be argued that Latino/a themed or

Latino/a focused charter schools were establish according to

second criteria stipulated above. A quick look at the webpages

and mission statements of a selective group of Latino themed

charter schools (unocharterschools.org, dignidad.org,

greendot.org, callolin.org) reveal that many of these schools are

designed to improve the academic achievement of an historically

neglected and underserved student population. The majority of the

students at the schools listed above are Latino/a. However, as

activists in the Latino community, the exodus of Latino/a

students and parents who are leaving traditional public schools

in favor of charter schools also troubles us.

Our previously published analysis (Montaño & Aoki, 2011)

provided a brief history of the charter school movement and the

growth of that movement. Second, we questioned the motives of the

Obama-Duncan administration and exposed how their policies,

initiatives, and funding promoted the rapid proliferation of

charter schools. We also critiqued those within the Latino

community, especially the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) for

their failure to improve our schools and their complicity and

4

involvement in removing the “public” from public education.

Finally, we added the voices of a selected group of public and

charter school practitioners to our critical inquiry. All had

worked in public schools, were community or union activists and

all were affiliated with the authors.

On this occasion, we choose a different path. Since our last

chapter, there has been a continued, towering increase in the

number of charter schools in predominately Latino/a communities

throughout California, a fact we elaborate upon further in this

chapter. Furthermore, the local teachers union has abandoned its

previous position that unions should reject the idea of charter

organizing (Mac, personal communication, December 11, 2013). As

we write this chapter, unions are in the beginning stages of

organizing charter schools, and their efforts have been

paralleled by a simultaneous increase in the organizing efforts

of so-called educational reformers whose views and interest

reflect the present neoliberal ideology that public schools

should be turned into private schools. Many of these “educational

reformers” are actively working to convince Latino/a parents that

Latino/a students would be much better off attending privately

5

controlled, non-union charter schools. Moreover, many of those

reformers are funded by supporters of the Obama adminstration and

their efforts to are directly linked to the adminstrations’

efforts to proliferate charter schools. Given the intensity of

the organizing underway in Latino/a communities and the present

set of proposed changes in local, state and federal policies this

demographic shift towards charters will continue. Many corporate

foundations are funding community based organizations to convince

parents to transform public schools into union charter schools.

But, in whose interest is ti to fund charter schools? We contend

that it is in their self interests. As a counterpoint, unions,

drawing on their rich history in the labor movement and advocacy

for worker rights and social justice, can counter corporate

interests by adding their voices to those who are critiquing

Obama policies, to thosw who stand for important public education

for all, and to thosw who beilee that public education is a civic

responsibility for all children.

Using California’s educational landscape as the backdrop,

this chapter is crtical analysis of these organizing efforts. The

analysis is based upon a review of the literature on charter

6

schools, conversations with union leaders and community activists

in California, and personal knowledge about the current

educational landscape for Latino/as in California. We invited

members of the union to share their perspectives on union

organizing and charter schools.

Charter School History

While teaching educational administration courses at the

University of Massachusetts, in the 1960s, Ray Budde

conceptualized charter schools as a means of restructuring school

districts (Kolderie, June 2005). Until the 1980s, his concepts

received little notice. However, in 1988 after the publication of

A Nation at Risk (1983) and A Nation Prepared (1986), Budde

published his earlier work to wider distribution. That same year,

Al Shanker, then American Federation of Teachers president,

embraced the charter school concept, with a proposal that

teachers start and run new schools, labeled charter schools. Soon

thereafter, Minnesota, which had a history of support for

alternative educational programs, passed the first charter school

law in 1991 and opened the U.S.’s first two charter schools the

following year. Minnesota’s charter school legislation promoted

7

school choice, the creation of new schools with relative autonomy

from the authority of school districts, and schools with a degree

of freedom from state laws and regulations that governed school

districts. They were student-centered and results-oriented

(Minnesota Legislative Reference Library, 2010).

The number of charter school expanded from the two Minnesota

schools in 1992 to 1,297 schools throughout the nation in 1999

and 5,043 in 2009 serving over 1.5 million students in 40 states,

the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The National Alliance

for Public Charter Schools (Magee, 2013) reported that in 2012-

2013, one in every 20 students in the United States, more than

2.3 million students, attended a charter school,

From its earliest beginnings to present, the charter school

concept has evolved. Today, there are three types of charter

i We use Chicano/a in a socio-political context to denote anindividual of Mexican descent who is an activist in improving thesocial position of all Chicanos/as and who advocates forreclamation of his/her heritage and group-defined ethnicidentity. We use Latino/a to encompass an ethnic group withorigins in Latin American that is inclusive of Chicano/a.

8

schools, EMOs (Educational Management Organizations), CMOs

(Charter School Management Organizations) and independent or

freestanding charter schools. According to the Department of

Education, Educational Management Organizations (EMOs) are for

profit management firms that manage charter schools. These

entities receive public funds. According to the National Charter

School Resource Center (charterschoolcenter.org), Charter School

Management Organizations are non-profits that operate multiple

charter schools, some more familiar CMOs are Rocketship Charter

Schools, Green Dot Schools and KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program.

Independent or freestanding charter schools are those organized

by educators, activists, parents, and others who have full

responsibility for running the school. While CMOs and EMOs are

rapidly proliferating, the majority of charter schools are still

independent.

Miron’s (2012) research reveals that, “In 2011- 2012, 36%

of all public charter schools in the U.S. were operated by

private CMOs or EMOs, and these schools accounted for almost 44%

of all students enrolled in charter schools. The proportion of

students in for-profit EMO-operated schools is slightly larger

9

than the proportion of students enrolled in schools operated by

nonprofit CMOs. Since 1995-1996, the number of for-profit EMOs

has increased from 5 to 97, and the number of schools operating

has increased from 6 to 840. We estimate that enrollment has

grown from approximately 1,000 students in 1995-1996 to 462,926

in 2011-2012.”

California opened its doors in 1993 to 98 charter schools,

serving 60,481 students, of whom 37.2% were “Hispanic/Latino.” By

1998, California had 89,387 students enrolled in 166 charter

schools, 36.0% were “Hispanic/Latino.” In 2008-2009, 746

California charter schools served 285,617 students, 41.1% were

“Hispanic/Latino.” By fall 2013, the number of California charter

schools had grown by 104 to 1,130 schools serving more than

519,000 students. With Latino/a students representing over 50% of

6,252,031 California public school students, an increasing number

of those students are entering charter schools (Ed-Data 1993 to

2010). Today, California has the nation’s highest charter school

enrollment, and by 2021 the projected charter school enrollment

is 1,600,000 students.

10

Today, several Latino/a community based and civil rights

organizations currently operate or support charter schools. Four

of the largest organizations are National Council of La Raza,

Aspira, United Neighborhood Organization (UNO), and Green Dot.

• National Council of La Raza (NCLR): Since 2005, NCLR has

supported 115 charter schools that serve more than 25,000 Latino

children (nclr.org) with capacity building, training and

technical assistance, and supplemental funding. NCLR, arguably

the most powerful and established Latino civil rights

organization in the United States, is the largest Latino/a civil

rights organization in the nation and, the largest civil rights

organization working with charter schools.

• Aspira: Aspira began as a youth advocacy organization for

Puerto Rican and other Latino/a youth. Included in its mission

statement was the call for quality education for their

constituent group. Today, Aspira runs fourteen charter schools

and three alternative schools. Through its schools, ASPIRA Clubs,

and after-school education and guidance programs, Aspira serves

over 85,000 students (aspira.org).

11

• United Neighborhood Organization (UNO): UNO, based in

Chicago, is another organization that supports Latino/a themed

charter schools. The Chicago Tribune has referred to UNO, an

Alinsky-type community-based organization, as the organization

“poised to become the largest direct-service charter school

management firm in Illinois.” (Mihalopoulos and Ahmed, 2009). In

1998 UNO started its first Chicago charter school. It now

operates sixteen charter schools serving over 7,500 students in

the city and, capitalizing on the 2005 tragedy of Hurricane

Katrina, opened its first charter school outside of the Chicago

area in New Orleans. According to Chang (2010) the UNO school in

New Orleans did not receive a charter extension due to low

academic performance and was taken over by Choice Schools in June

2010.

• Green Dot: Green Dot Public Schools in Los Angeles

established the Animo Leadership Academy with Latino/a students

in mind. Presently, Green Dot, arguably NOT a Latino/a themed

charter organization, operates nineteen schools in the Los

Angeles area and is among the first charter organizations to have

a unionized teaching staff.

12

Private, for profit companies have also accelerated their

funding of charter schools. For instance, JP Morgan Chase’s 2010

$325 million initiative supports the growth of high-performing US

charter schools. Furthermore, the Broad, Gates, Walton Family,

and Lumina foundations have also increased funding for charter

schools into the tens of millions of dollars annually.

Additionally, other corporations or their non-profit affiliated

foundations may not directly fund Latino/a themed charter

schools, yet they generously fund community-based organizations

like National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and school districts that

are predominately Latino/a.

The dramatic growth of charters in the Latino/a community is

also due, in part, to the extreme organizing efforts of groups

like Parent Revolution, Student’s First and other groups funded

by corporate philanthropists who are committed to the

privatization of public schools. Many of these groups have

political ties to the Obama adminstration and are among the

adminstrations greatest supporters. It is in this context, that

unions attempt to organize charter schools.

13

Neoliberal Rhetoric:Obama and Duncan and the Charter School Movement

Debatably, the Obama election was an opportunity to

dismantle eight years of failed educational policy. Many of

Obama’s supporters believed that the newly elected administration

would support innovation, excellence, and equity in education. It

was, for many, considered an opportunity to counter the Bush

policies such as Bush’s attempt to promote charters instead of

vouchers. When failing to secure congressional support for

vouchers, Bush used “public appearances to promote charter

schools as the solution to public school problems” (Hursh, 2008,

31). Obama supporters hoped that his election would help

overturn Bush policies, but the policies emanating from the Obama

administration have not turned back the Bush administration’s

attacks on public education.

While many supporters of Obama are hesitant to label the

educational policies of Obama and Duncan’s as neoliberal, they

are willing to challenge policies emanating from the

adiminstration. In 2010, the NAACP and five other civil rights

organizations issued a balanced yet scathing critique of the

14

Obama and Duncan education program, Race to the Top (RTTT). The

$4.35 billion RTTT fund favors charter schools, competition, and

punitive measures. The reports states: "If education is a civil

right, children in 'winning' states should not be the only ones

who have the opportunity to learn in a high-quality environment.”

A living example of conflict within is NCLR’s failure to actively

engage in a criticism of RTTT or NCLB and of the Latino community

to hold the Obama administration accountable. We would argue that

unless critical educational activists interrogate and challenge

the rhetoric of ‘social justice’ appropriated by Secretary

Duncan, we are complicit in the administration’s regressive

educational agenda. Our silence allows a market-driven

educational system to destroy what is left of public education.

The first sign that Obama’s perspective on public education

was problematic was the appointment of Arne Duncan. After the

announcement, Gerald Bracey (2009) characterized the losers as

the “educators in schools and universities” and the winners as

those “who managed to label the opposition candidate, Linda

Darling-Hammond, as an instrument of the ’status quo’ and a tool

of the teachers union.” Duncan was a successful businessman, not

15

an educator. His appointment was a sign that Obama’s views on

public education were corporatist and pro-charter. Obama’s

appointee, Arne Duncan, was infatuated with charter schools. Arne

Duncan’s policies in Chicago were a “model of school closings and

education privatization” (Brown, Gukstein and Lipman, 2009, 1).

An ally of corporate interest, Duncan put Chicago schools on

probation, forced external partners upon them, and closed or

‘turned around’ schools often handing them over to private

contractors. In 2009, Duncan called charter schools “one of the

most profound changes in American education. (They) bring new

options to underserved communities and introduce competition and

innovation into the system.” (US Department of Education, 2009,

2). Additionally, his support of charters has been monetarily

beneficial for charter schools. The Obama administration has

funded charter schools to the tune of $241,507,000 in its FY 2014

budget).

Neoliberalism, Obama, Duncan and the Charter School Movementin Latino/a Communities

David Harvey (2005) defined neoliberalism as

16

‘‘a theory of political economic practices that proposes

that human wellbeing can best be advanced by liberating

individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an

institutional framework characterized by strong private

property rights, free markets, and free trade. The role of

the state is to create and preserve an institutional

framework appropriate to such practices.” (5).

The neoliberal framework has changed the emphasis on

education for the public good to education as a commodity. Weiner

(2007) suggests that neoliberal reforms in education such as

privatization, the movement away from centralized, authority,

accountability based solely on standardized tests, and weakening

of teacher unions have implications on teacher preparation and

practicing classroom teachers. For example, for profit charter

universities compete with public ones by offering students

attractive financial aid packages and accelerated, on-line

teacher preparation programs. The Obama adminstration is

complicit in propogating neoliberal ideology by funding

alternative programs, such as Teacher for America.

17

One salient danger of neoliberal policy is that it uses the

rhetoric of the civil rights community to advance its notion of

educational reform. For instance, in a speech delivered to the

National Education Association (2008), Obama named “education as

the civil rights issue of the generation.” However, his policies,

past and present, point to the evolution of an educational system

that only exacerbates the inequality gap between middle and

working class students. Arne Duncan has and will continue to

publically endorse charter schools, in spite of the lack of

consistent evidence that they have improved the quality of

education. Through his actions, Duncan guarantees “the corporate

liberalism of Bill Clinton and the conservative “populism” of

Ronald Reagan” (Karp, 2010, p. 53).

In the Blueprint for the Reauthorization of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Secretary Duncan advances the

concept of “turnaround schools”. This policy, if implemented,

would facilitate the takeover of public schools by charter school

operatives. He silences charter school opponents by arguing that

charter schools are not “private”, claiming that charter schools

are public because they are publically funded. However, a growing

18

number of charter schools are managed by private, for-profit

organizations and many are recipients of millions of dollars

donated by private, for profit entrepreneurs. “Turnaround

schools” will do little to improve the situation of troubled

schools. In exchange for federal funding, the Blueprint will

require teacher evaluation to be connected to test scores,

infringe on teacher collective bargaining rights, and encourage

school districts to turn over public schools to charter school

operatives.

The Obama-Duncan administration has also made it easier for

neoliberals and corporate interests to worm their way into

Latino/a and Chicano/a communities. Across the country, schools

districts with a high percentage of Latino/a-Chicano/a children

have introduced a new agenda for reforming schools. This agenda

supported by many Latino/a-Chicano/a elected officials promotes

the proposals of the Obama administration, including the

conversion of public schools into charter schools. In

California, for example, Latino/a-Chicano/a elected officials

have rammed through a series of dubious and complex changes that

will have a potentially devastating effect on the educational

19

landscape for several years—and Latino children and youth will be

caught in the crossfire.

Taking Back the Discourse: Confronting Inequity in Education

In response to the view that public schools have failed,

Berliner & Biddle (1995) suggests charter school reform was

propagated to manufacture the public’s consent for the

privatization of public schools (Klein, 2007). This manufactured

consent is reflected in what UNO, NCLR, Aspira, and Green Dot Animo

Leadership Academies are doing to promote charter schools. However,

this critique of the charter school movement is not an indictment

of Latino/a-Chicano/a civil rights organizations. We recognize

that Chicana/o-Latina/o students “remain the most undereducated

major population group in the country” (Gándara & Contreras,

2009, 18), and that Latino/a themed charter schools were and are

being designed, in part, to improve the education of the

Chicano/a students.

Edexcellencia (2007) reports that 37 percent of our

country’s Latino/a-Chicano/a student population will drop out of

high school. The California Department of Education reveals that

Latino/a students remain underrepresented in public colleges and

20

universities. Nationally, only 35 percent of 18-24-year-old

Latino/as will enroll in college compared to 46 percent of whites

(Fry, 2002). Moreover, only 11 percent of Chicana/o college

students enrolling in four-year colleges will ever graduate.

To make matters worse, the electorate has initiated a number

of educational projects that are unfriendly to Latinos/as, such

as English Only instruction, measuring student achievement on the

basis of scores on English standardized exams, unequal

distribution of qualified teachers, and more. These policies have

exacerbated the conditions of public schools in the Latino/a

community and deteriorated the quality of the instructional

program.

Latino civil rights organizations driven by the desire to

remedy the situation established and/or supported charter

schools. Some members of the Latino/a community responded by

transferring their children from traditional public schools to

charter schools. During the 2012 Chicago teachers’ strike, for

example, new Latino/a UNO charter school enrollment increased by

thirty students (NBCLatino). The same report indicated that in

Chicago, “Latinos are increasingly enrolling in charter schools,

21

going from 20 percent of the charter school population in the

1999-2000 year to 26 percent in 2009-2010” (Sanchez, 2012).

Nationally, four of the five states with the highest number of

charter schools, California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida, also

have the highest number of Latino/a students. While the

establishment of charters objectively aids and abets

privatization of public education, Latino/a parents remain

uninformed, and a number of them see charter schools as a viable

alternative for improving the quality of their children’s

education.

In sum, the rapid increase in the number of charter schools

might advance the interests of a few Chicana/o students, but it

also destroys any hope for quality public education for all

Latino/a students. Moreover, corporations and private interests

are capitalizing on the Chicana/o community discontent with

public education by rapidly increasing their efforts to convert

public schools into charters. In other words, neoliberals and

corporate interests have successfully portrayed public education

as a failing and unaccountable bureaucracy and wormed their way

into Latino/a communities with Latino/a-themed or Latino/a

22

community placed charter schools. As such, they have used the

educational inequity in the Latino/a community to manufacture

consent and take over barrio schools.

Fear as Catalyst for Manufacturing Consent in the Barrio

However, the cause of school failure experienced by the

majority of Latino/a children rests squarely in the hands of

those who determine educational and social policy. The social and

political reality in the United States is that class and race

directly impact the amount of educational progress a Latino/a

student attains. A Latino/a parent’s level of educational

attainment directly influences the education of her/his children,

the child’s level of education influences his/her opportunity for

gainful employment, and employment influences economic stability.

Lipman (2004) posits that racial and class inequalities are an

“ensemble of social relations that are shaped by global, nation,

and local political-economic structures and ideological forces”

(5). In the Latino/a community, these forces are using monetary

incentives in the form of philanthropic gifts to Latino/a civil

rights organizations and Latino/a themed charter schools. And,

parents are taking the bait.

23

A recurrent theme in Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine is the

role that fear and disaster play in the advancement of neoliberal

ideology and corporate stranglehold on society. Klein (2007)

maintains that the corporate elite in the United States have

succeeded in presenting a negative perspective of public

education and have used the mass media to promote this biased

portrayal of U.S. public schools. The attacks on public education

are not only emanating from the right, but also the liberal media

has recently added its voice to the onslaught of anti-union,

anti-teacher rhetoric. The film “Waiting for Superman” by Davis

Guggenheim offers charters schools as the sole solution to the

problems in public schools.

It is evident, that corporations, elected officials, and

educational pundits have capitalized on the generally poor

quality of education received by Latino/a-Chicano/a children to

convert public schools into charter schools and to established

new charters in Latino/a communities rather than fund and support

reform within traditional public schools that would benefit all

students. Many in the Latino/a community, including progressive

and liberal Chicano/a elected officials, have supported the

24

practice of replacing public schools with charter schools. We

argue that these practices are a part of a broader agenda to

deregulate and privatize public schools. To that end, the anti-

public education propaganda model effectively implements the

fourth filter described by Herman & Chomsky as “flak” to describe

our teachers as ineffective, our schools as failing, and to

otherwise discredit public education and as the data demonstrates

more and more public schools are transitioning into charter

schools. And, many of those schools are in the Latino/a

community.

In fact, data shows that the pro-charter propaganda is

having a devastating impact on public schools in California, more

than half a million Californians send their children to charter

schools and, the numbers continue to grow. For example, in San

Diego, the number of charter school students increased by thirty-

five percent between the 2011-12 and 2012-13. In Los Angeles

Unified, the number of children in charter schools increased by

twenty-three percent. These two school districts had some of the

highest increases in the nation. The bottom line is that the

number of charter schools is climbing at an unprecedented rate,

25

forcing unions to actively begin charter school organizing. In

the words of one union activist, “by the end of this decade if we

don’t organize (charter schools), our membership will decline,

and along with our membership, contract standards, political

power, and our voice in the profession.” In a state like

California, with a Latino/a student population of 52.7%, unions

are faced with the reality that they needs to convince Latino/a

parents that a public school education is better for Latino/a

children and youth than one they can receive at a charter school.

Pro-charter organizations like Students First, Democrats for

Education Reform and Parent Revolution are actively organizing in

predominately Latino/a communities, even paying parents as

organizers and working with civil rights organizations against

unions.

Our inquiry moves us into the world of union organizing. In

writing this chapter, shifted from our previous work focused on

Latino themed charter schools into the realm of union organizing

in predominately Latino communities. We asked union activists

their opinions about charter schools, charter school organizing

26

and asked them to convince Latino parents that a union organized

charter is the best interest of their children.

The practitioners are a convenience sample of five union

leaders, all activists in arguably the most powerful teachers

union in the nation. Our practitioners are organizing in

predominately Latino/a, racially isolated, and segregated

schools. Their diverse and varied backgrounds provide a broad

perspective on charter schools in the Latino/a community. To

protect the anonymity of the interviewees, we have changed their

names.

Tracie is a leader in the city of Richmond, California. She

is a member of the Board of Directors for one of the most

powerful unions in the country, where among her many duties is to

monitor charter school organizing across the state. She

represents an urban center in northern California, which composed

of Latino/a, African-American and white students. Her district

includes Oakland, where the Great Oakland Public Schools non-

profit corporation is actively organizing to convert public

schools into charters. In her immediate school district, there

are eight charter schools.

27

Bob is the president of the teachers union located in the

second largest school district in California. His union has

actively been organizing charter schools. His school district has

experienced more charter school growth than any other school

district in the state and the second highest in the nation. The

UpforED organization is actively organizing in the school

district and has promoted the parent trigger law on its website.

UpforED and has also received one million dollars in funding from

Corporate philanthropist Rod Dammeyer, who sits on the board of

High Tech charter high school and the California Charter Schools

Association. Four of the forty-nine charter schools in this

district are unionized.

Edward is the vice-president of the largest statewide

teachers union in the nation. Edward jokes that among “his other

duties as assigned” is to supervise an urban charter school

organizing initiative in the second largest school district in

the nation. He has become familiar with the charter school

movement and the impact that this movement is having on the

membership decline in the union.

28

Mac is a union organizer. His primary responsibility, at

this time, is to coordinate a unionization campaign in the second

largest school district in the nation. He currently has five

union organizers working in this district a few of them fit the

definition of Latino themed charter schools. Two Latino themed

charters schools in this District, Amino Green Dot and Camino

Nuevo are among the first to become “union”, while Semillas del

Pueblo and ASPIRA remained unorganized. This is not his first

effort at organizing charter schools having unionized charters in

other urban areas. Among the group of union organizers in this

essay, he is probably the most knowledgeable about the charter

schools.

Daniel is a union organizer in the second largest school

district in the nation. He recently chaired a major strategic

planning project for the statewide organization, where his sub-

committee looked at revamping the organizing work of the union.

He is involved in the charter school organizing campaign for

which Mac is responsible. His school district has confronted

Parent Revolution, a community based organization actively

29

working to change public schools into charters. He and his wife

are also active in the Latino/a community.

The five unionists discussed their views on charter school

organizing. The respondents also shared their views on the hopes

and challenges of organizing charter schools. We asked them to

respond to critics who argue that it is a contradiction to

organized charter schools, given the role they play in promoting

corporatization of public school education. Furthermore, given

the variety of charter schools, including those of dubious

quality, we asked them to consider the question of standards on

what types of charter school unions should organize. We also

asked questions regarding the ability of union charters to

provide quality education to Latina/o students.

Don’t Mourn, Organize!

Organize charter schools? Yes. Why? Our unionists, to a person,

identified improving the quality of education for Latino/s

students and all students as the primary goal. In our original

chapter, charter school practitioners, also to a person,

identified the goal of culturally and linguistically responsive

education for Latino students as a motivation for choosing to

30

work in a charter over a traditional public school. If then this

is a common goal among charter school practitioners, we wondered

if unionization would contribute to the above-stated common goal?

The answers are complicated and overlapping in the context of an

ever-changing landscape, through a lens of mistrust and

misunderstanding of motives and impact, and with knowledge gaps

on all sides.

As a group, the union activists acknowledged the changing

landscape of unionization. They described the expansion of

charter schools and argued that teachers should be allies no

matter where they teach. In the opinion of these unionists,

traditional and charter schoolteacher should work together to

better serve students. They believe that unionization can ensure

that working conditions are conducive to good teaching and can

contribute to a more stable working force and, therefore, a more

stable educational environment for students.

Edward stated that many if not most union members had strong

feelings against charter schools and did not support them.

However, union leadership felt “the ground shifting beneath their

feet” as charter schools rapidly expanded to now serving five

31

percent or more of all students. This loss in potential union

membership was viewed as continuing to erode the effectiveness of

unions to advocate for students for equitable education and for

teachers in collective bargaining for fair work conditions. One

interviewee stated that unionization of charter schools was

necessary for unions’ long-term effectiveness in both areas.

Daniel reflected on his changed perception about charter

school unionization. He acknowledged that he had no initial

interest in organizing them. In his view, charter schools

undermined traditional public education by draining resources and

facilities and by drawing a more able student body leaving. The

growth in charters has left his district with fewer resources and

a less diverse, more segregated student population with

proportionally more traditionally underserved students. He

acknowledged that charter school organizers had and have diverse

motives, some hoping for greater academic freedom and more

innovation, for more culturally and linguistically responsive

curriculum and environment; others motivated by the desire to

destroy public education, to undermine unions, and to make

profits. He stated that, in theory, charter schools could serve

32

as lab schools, developing promising practice and validating

programs to bring back to the broader public school environment.

They could be more culturally and linguistically responsive to

students, parents, and community.

Looking back to our original chapter and interviews with

charter and traditional public school teachers, two of five

practitioners expressed a wary attitude toward unions,

particularly with respect to the impact of “tenure” on

educational quality. One unionist interviewee substantiated this

view of unions by pointing out that the recent results from focus

groups with charter school teachers indicated that charter

schoolteachers often regard teacher unions as “another boss,

someone who will try and tell them what to do.” He emphasized

that charter school teachers view unions with trepidation and

they “freaked out about tenure.” According to this union

organizer, unions “have a lot of ideological work to do.

In truth, California school districts implement a system

of due process and job security, often called tenure, but the

system does not grant tenure to K-12 teachers. Tenure is a

practice reserved for university and college professors. K–12

33

teachers have dismissal procedures that guarantee due process

rights to teachers facing dismissal. According to Posnick-

Goodwin (2010), “tenure has become a popular term used as a

scapegoat for the real problems, which are ineffective

evaluation of instruction, poor administrative practices, and

inadequate investment by the public schools” (para.1). The

economic environment during the last eight years, which

includes cutbacks in staffing, creates tension between younger

and senior teachers because teacher layoffs are based pri-

marily on seniority. Unlike the neoliberal myth that unions

protect “bad” teachers, any teacher is subject to dismissal

and it is due process that protects them from arbitrary

firing; but unlike union activists, many charter

schoolteachers do not understand the reasoning or purpose of

seniority. These differences in political perspectives cause

this seasoned union organizer to declare that among charter

schoolteachers, unions have “a lot of ideological work to

do”.

Teacher Solidarity and Improving Working Conditions

34

Taking a step back to look at the changing landscape,

interviewees evolved in their understanding of those working in

charter school settings, calling charter schoolteachers,

“brothers and sisters,” and pointing out the commonality among

educators. The feeling of solidarity far outweighed the

differences between this set of unionists and charter

schoolteachers. These organizers believed that no teacher should

be subject to exploitation. Since charter school teachers are

generally more vulnerable to lay-offs, discipline without due

process, and to abusive polices, these teacher unionists

maintained that unionization of charter schools would inevitably

improve the working conditions of all teachers.

All interviewees mentioned working conditions as a reason to

unionize charter schools. They voiced the desire that all

teachers, traditional and charter should have the same rights and

protections related to work hours, annual school calendar, job

responsibilities, pay scales, and freedom of speech. There was a

general sense that charter school teachers often worked longer

hours, longer school years, and had added responsibilities

without additional compensation, a stance corroborated by our

35

earlier interviews with charter practitioners. Teachers, no

matter their setting, should have protections and similar

conditions under which to work. “It’s the right thing to do”,

said Eddie.

Bob, Daniel, Edward, and Tracie discussed the importance of

due process from one angle or another and stated that charter

teachers could and were terminated for little or no reason,

noting the chilling effect that “at will” employment had on

charter school teachers. Interviewees voice that charter

schoolteachers could be stronger advocates for their students,

parents, and themselves if unionized. Their voices would not be

silenced for fear of termination. There was also general sense

that charter school unionization would move charter

schoolteachers from disadvantaged and abused to equal working

standards and more empowering working conditions. Tracie, teacher

union member from northern California, voiced that working

conditions in every school should be as similar as possible, that

some teachers should not “have to” work longer or harder than

others. She stated that it does not enhance the profession of

teaching when working conditions are so different school to

36

school. Another interviewee, Daniel stated that unionization of

charter school teachers would prevent union standards from

eroding.

Teacher solidarity and the improvement of teacher working

conditions were important initiatives for creating unions

comprised of both charter school and traditional public school

teachers, but these union members also insisted that protecting

the rights of charter school teachers was a part of a broader

movement to protect the rights of ALL working people. One

interviewee stated that the struggle for public education

necessitated alliances with other public workers that all workers

should be in the struggle together.

However, the concept of solidarity, according to these union

activists, was not limited to improving the working conditions of

teachers, but the idea that charter and public school teachers

could improve education for all students. The adversarial

relationship between traditional and charter was not serving the

best interests of the students. By sharing best practices and

working together, students in both settings would benefit.

Theoretically, charter schools should support traditional schools

37

in their roles as lab schools developing and validating practices

and bringing them back to traditional schools.

Teacher working conditions are student-learning conditions

The union activists, in this study agreed that both

traditional public schoolteachers and charter schoolteachers want

to provide a sound education to their students. A stable

learning environment enhances students’ ability to learn.

“Studies have shown that on average, teacher turnover diminishes

student achievement.” (Rich, 2013, 2). Bob and Tracie indicated

that unionization could have a positive effect on teacher

longevity and lead to a more stable learning environment for

children. Their contention is substantiated by a study that

showed that controlling for all other measurable factors, “the

authors find that the odds of charter teachers exiting are still

33 percent higher than those of regular public school teachers.

There is an even larger difference in secondary schools, where

charter teachers are almost four times more likely to leave.”

(DiCarlo, 2011, 1).

Daniel also stated that holding charter schools to the same

accountability standards as traditional public schools would

38

result in a rise in the quality of charter schools (i.e., as

measured by student achievement).

Challenges and Promises of Organizing Charter Schools

The unionists believe that charter schoolteachers, in

general, have less than positive attitudes toward unions. In

fact, some charter schoolteachers worry that the union can

potentially influence the pedagogical practices of a particular

charter and resist becoming union. Nevertheless, the union

activists in this study consider the most virulent and organized

opposition comes from charters run by EMOs, and secondarily by

some managed by CMOs. When describing the challenges associated

with organizing EMOs/CMOs, Daniel summarized his views and those

of Edward and Mac as such, “In general, employers would much

rather not want to deal with the rights of employees.” These

union organizers see EMOs/CMOs as working against unionization.

Bob viewed some EMOs/CMOs as creating among teachers. Daniel

and Edward stated that EMOs/CMOs are often actively anti-union

and discourage their employees from union action and collective

bargaining. Charter school teachers are aware that they are “at

will” employees and that their positions can be terminated at any

39

time if they oppose a dominant EMOs/CMOs anti-union view. When

unions began to organize, charter school teachers who might be

most open to unionization are also the most vulnerable to

termination. Mac identified other EMOs/CMOs tactics as

propagandizing teachers against unions, punishing and

disciplining teachers who are known to favor organization,

delaying bargaining until union-sympathizing teachers, who are

rehired each year, leave or are not rehired.

Lastly, Daniel and Mac stated that EMOs/CMOs have resources

to fight unionization, hiring law firms to stop unionization for

example, and because their focus is more limited than a union’s

many priorities, EMOs can target more resources to single issues

of importance, like blocking unionization. The union activists,

in this study agreed that both traditional public school teachers

and charter school teachers want to provide a sound education to

their students, but that for EMOs, that is not the top priority.

Charter School Teachers Attitudes Toward Unions

Bob, David, Edward, and Tracie identified the attitudes that

charter schoolteachers have of “the union” as an issue or

challenge. Edward and Tracie indicated that educators who want to

40

teach in charter schools are often anti-union, that they believe

that unions are committed only to teacher issues and not to the

education of students, that unions are defenders of the status

quo and are obstacles to innovation rather than allies. Daniel

felt that union consciousness among teachers and others is

generally low and that charter school teachers are unaware of the

benefits of unionization. Bob stated that charter school teachers

enjoy freedoms of non-unionized schools because they are not held

as accountable for student achievement as in a public school and

they have more freedom of movement from one school to the next.

Interestingly, Daniel’s experience is that when traditional

school teachers and charter school teachers take the time to

dialogue meaningfully, they come to an understanding on the

benefits of unionization. Conversely, public schoolteachers

understand that the charter schoolteacher is not the enemy.

Daniel and Edward identified staff turnover as a challenge

in organizing. With staff turnovers as high as 45% per year

(Newton, Rivero, Fuller & Dauter, 2011), unions have the daunting

task of organizing and retaining teachers whose employment change

rapidly and yearly.

41

Bob and Tracie identified negative publicity as a challenge

in unionizing charter schools. Tracie says that EMOs, CMOs,

media, politicians, corporations, and other pro-charter

organizations have been very successful in creating an ‘us’

versus ‘them’ environment in public education and that unions

have been painted as concerned about only teachers and not about

quality education for students. Daniel lays the blame of negative

publicity at the feet of corporations and wealthy individuals who

easily outspend unions as they demonize both unions and

traditional public school educators in their rush to characterize

charter schools as the solution to addressing the needs of the

children.

Daniel indicated that the negativity permeates the system

including parents, many of whom believe that the traditional

public schools are broken and that the problem lies with teacher

unions. Because of their level of awareness of traditional public

schools or lack of same, parents of charter school students tend

to support the views of charter supporters and advocate against

unionizing educators.

Consumer Choice versus Civic Obligation

42

Of the four interviewees who responded, Bob, Edward, and

Tracie indicated that unions would choose civic obligation and

Daniel said both. Bob feels that the country has a civic

responsibility to educate all children of all colors, languages,

religions, income levels and national origins. He states that all

students should be afforded the same opportunity for a quality

education. Edward agrees that public schools are a civic

responsibility. He indicates that his union is trying to change

the choice narrative and strengthen society’s collective civic

responsibility to provide free, quality public education to all

students. Tracie believes that public education is a civic

responsibility as well. But he says that our country has not

truly made that civic commitment. Although unions have been

fighting to provide equitable education for all students, they

haven’t yet achieved that goal and, thus, our country needs

serious commitment to schools in which all students can

participate. Tracie voiced that the education of all of our

children should be the priority, like other countries with strong

educational systems, not school choice for a few. All respondents

expressed the same sentiment answering the question, “Why?”

43

Daniel doesn’t think that consumer choice and civic

obligation are oppositional. However, with severely underfunded

schools and war being waged on public education workers and

students, the two choices become adversarial. In the end, Daniel

believes that Diane Ravitch’s observations are accurate. He

states, “Ultimately being supporters of public education does not

mean that we (unions) are defenders of the status quo.”

No unionist voiced opposition to choice, pointing to a

broader mission of equitable education for all. Daniel saw the

need for a broader movement that demands of all schools excellent

education, access, equity, language rights, and so forth. And

that once standards are set, all schools should be held

accountable. He notes that there are charter schools that achieve

those standards, but that others do not. Until all do, individual

parents—some informed, many uninformed—would make decisions in

the absence of a movement that directly takes on the issue of

broad standards and accountability for all.

Daniel, Edward, and Mac agreed that there should be

standards for the types of charter schools that unions organize.

Bob disagreed indicating that any charter school that has

44

employees should be eligible for organizing, and Tracie was

unsure.

Mac felt the need for unions to develop a set of criteria

for determining the type of charter schools that unions might

want to organize. Daniel and Edward would exclude charter schools

that lean toward privatization, that are dysfunctional or near

collapse, and that are “corrupt.” Daniel indicated that it might

be wise to prioritize the remaining schools by criteria such as

density, willingness, and capabilities of teachers, employer

strength, and so forth. Edward added that acceptance of due

process must be a standard.

Parental Choice and Unionization

Interviewees identified actions and information as avenues

of parental approval. Bob suggested that parents must be

respected and honored in our public schools. Daniel suggested

that once teachers are convinced that unions are in their best

interests, parents would follow. He suggested that Latino/a

parents have a natural affinity with the many young, Latino/a,

and immigrant or children of immigrants who are charter school

teachers. And that if teachers have a political conscious, they

45

can be convinced that unionization supports their advocacy for

students and parents, and they can in turn convince parents that

unionized schools are better equipped to advocate for and provide

for equitable education to their children. Edward included

reaching out and engaging parents and opening schools to allow

parents true participation, not just open house or back to

school, as avenues of advocacy for their children.

Bob, Edward, and Mac suggested that efforts be made to

increase parental awareness of the benefits of unionized charters

versus non-unionized. Awareness of the effects that union

protection gives to teachers is key. Unionized teachers can

advocate more effectively for parents and for children without

fear of reprisal from administration. Unionized teachers can push

to have more local control of charter schools, including the

assurance that the school is accountable to the community it

services. Mac states that local control is a central issue that

moves parents and community members away from being “consumers”

of an educational service toward taking responsibility for

building a school community. As well, Edward suggests that

parents with knowledge of the union/non-union status of charters

46

can compare and contrast their choices. The general tone of

unionist sentiment was that teacher and parent union

consciousness is low, that teachers and parents have tenuous

understandings of unionization, its history, purposes, and

benefits to children and to workers. In that regard, unions have

much work ahead in raising consciousness toward social justice

and equity in education and working conditions. Both teachers and

parents are the focus.

Conclusion

As we conclude this study about union organizing in

predominately Latino communities of Latino-themed charter

schools, we remain critical of the move by the Obama

administration which under the guise of school improvement and

accountability has offered our schools to corporations whose dual

objectives are to produce profit and a succession of submissive,

docile, compliant workers. A case in point is Obama policies that

have reshaped public schooling into a more competitive,

corporatized, and grossly unequal educational system that has

done little to improve the quality of education for Latino/a

students. By their actions, the Obama administration, Latino

47

civil rights organizations, corporations and foundations situate

themselves in favor of or in tacit agreement with the

proliferation of charter schools over traditional public schools.

We believe that progressive educators, including those in union

leadership, tend not to be critical of Democratic administrations

or of community organizations. On the other hand, our experiences

tells us that Latino/a community activists, mainly out of loyalty

to civil rights organizations who have worked for decades to

improve the social conditions of Latino/as, hesitate to critique

those in our own communities like NCLR or UNO. We maintain that

the time to critique these policies and practices is necessary.

We consider the potential effects of not confronting our own who

are, in truth giving voice to the dark side of corporate and

foundation funding of charter schools and maintain that at this

time, we must challenged neoliberalism in all it’s forms. In this

light, we applaud the efforts of unions to organize charter

schools, because it is anti-corporate and anti-privatization. We

agree with Mac who said, the more union charters there are, the

reasons to organize for-profit charters will dwindle.

48

Without question the Obama-Duncan educational policies

reflect a neoliberal agenda, by calling for an increase in the

number of charter schools, paying teachers based on students’

scores on standardized tests, and the adoption of a dubious set

of national standards and more tests among others. It is in this

context, that we walk away from this reflective inquiry arguing

that Latino civil rights organizations financed and supported by

corporate philanthropists must be exposed. We strongly maintain

our original position that the push towards charter schools is a

blatant attempt at destroying public education and that they do

little to eradicate the educational inequities facing Latino/a

students. Our conversations with teachers and community

substantiate our initial research by noting that there is a

schism between charter and traditional public school employees

and that these political differences do hamper exchange of ideas

that might improve education in both settings for students, but

in this case these differences can also hamper union organizing.

We agree with our unionists, that as union charters are

established, the standards for charters will also be established.

49

Organizing charters can help regulate the charter school

movement.

We also contend that charter school teachers who started

innovative charters must be provided a space in the union. As

previously stated, there were two reasons charters were created,

innovation and profit. Many of the Latino themed charters

schools, particularly freestanding, were designed as innovative

models, such as dual language schools. They were not founded as

anti-union, but pro-Latino. Conversely, charter schoolteachers

must recognize that as CMOs and EMOs try to reverse their

progressive educational agenda, unions can maintain the primary

mission of the school. As Mac so aptly pointed out, CMOs and EMOs

sometimes attempt to control progressive charter pedagogy, while

simultaneously made working conditions “a living hell”. Charter

school teachers at these repressive schools are more likely to

accept unions.

The questions about what can improve the education of

Latino/a were partially addressed, in this study. For the most

part our unionists agreed that the education of Latino/a students

is in crisis, and when we asked our unionists to describe how a

50

union charter school would improve the quality of education

received by Latino students, most agreed that we must create a

public education system that does not leave most students behind.

As Edward stated, “We must reach our and engage the community in

schools, but we should also organize to improve the conditions in

the community.” In our last article, the majority of our

practitioners saw benefit in the charter school movement, yet

understood that charter schools were not the answer. This time,

our respondents spoke to the importance of unionizing charter

schools.

It has been said that charter schools have become a “cause

célèbre for philanthropists, hedge fund managers, movie stars,

rock stars, and politicians” (von Zastrow, 2010), that the

media’s tendency to focus on the very best charter schools has

presented a distorted picture of charter schools. These high

achieving, high profile charter schools have come to represent

all charter schools. On the other hand, the very worst

traditional public schools have come to represent all public

schools, even though research points to a range of achievement

across both types including failed charters and highly successful

51

traditional public schools Despite some successes (and failures)

in both settings. The union organizers in this study embark on a

project aimed at unionizing charter schools and recognizing the

need to work with communities of color to improve the quality of

education for all students. As stated by one of our unionists,

traditional schools might have failed Latino students, but so

have charters. As union members seek to “take charter schools

over and make them better”, they must place the same emphasis on

organizing the community, as they place on organizing teachers.

We must stand together in community, own the inequity,

challenge assumptions, and call for genuine reform from within

with no blaming, no defensiveness. Parents, students, civil

rights organizations, and both traditional public and charter

school teachers have their hearts in the right place with the

same desires for high quality, highly effective culturally and

linguistically responsive education for all Latino/a students.

With that goal in mind, we can see alternatives more clearly,

review and reflect critically, engage in important dialogues and

discussions, and ensure that the best interests of the students,

not those of corporations and foundations, are at the forefront.

52

In parallel, brutal and honest debate regarding the state of

education in traditional public schools is a must. We believe

that good people can move beyond their own self-interests for the

benefit of the entire community, not my child, but our children;

not my school, but the schooling of all Latino/a children; not my

pocketbook, but our society. We tend not to criticize those on

our side of the fence, although the lack of constructive

criticism is a disservice to the very constituency that matters

the most – children, and criticize we must for Latino/a students

everywhere. Our conversations with a diverse group of unionists,

and previously practitioners, have showed us the importance of

engaging in constructive dialogue and informed discussion that

goes beyond the academic discourse. We have inferred from our

research and conversations that there is a divide between

perception and reality, research findings about charter schools

versus practitioner beliefs, that the media has largely presented

a biased case in favor of charter schools that permeates

perception. Activists tell us that flexibility and commonality of

purpose; smaller, more personal learning communities; and

consistency of program work for teachers, students, parents, and

53

others. These are solutions that can be implemented anywhere.

There is a general belief that change within the traditional

public school system must have its origins in teachers, that

teachers must resist system requirements that are detrimental to

the education of Latino students and embrace and implement those

that promote learning and student empowerment. All believe that

major changes must occur within the traditional public school

system. Ironically, most ‘innovations’ identified as successful

in charter schools are research-based and can, should, and have

been used successfully in traditional public schools (e.g.,

smaller learning communities).

Finally, we acknowledge criticisms of the public school

system for its general failure to education Latino/a students;

yet have faith that the public education system can improve. Even

though many schools are failing to adequately educate Latino/a

students, charter schools are not a panacea and are likely

detrimental to the educational experience of the vast majority of

Latino/a students who are enrolled in traditional public schools.

Our inquiry and reflections shed some light on the Obama

administration’s policies and funding of charter schools and

54

affirmed our thoughts. Our concentration should continue to be

critical of the Obama-Duncan policies and of “those in our own

back yard” who have failed to provide a balanced critique of

charter schools and of traditional public schools and to proposal

changes within the traditional public school system. . We cannot

stand by because an organization is a Latino civil rights

organization or an administration has general alignment with our

values. It is in the best interests of Latino/a students to

advocate, to critique and explore, to be brave and forthright in

our efforts to move beyond academic discourse to action, action

in which all constituents are represented at the table and in

which all engage in meaningful dialogue, including critique, for

the benefit of Latino/a youth. This is our advocacy, to bring

together natural allies in the fight for educational equity in

open and honest interchange aimed at restructuring and reforming

the educational system not just in charter schools, but overall.

References

Arenas, T. (2009). Unpublished senior thesis, California State

University Northridge. Northridge, CA.

55

Aspira website. 2013. APIRA’s Educational management organization.

Retrieved November 12, 2013

http://www.aspira.org/book/aspiras-educational-management-

organization

Berliner, D. & Biddle, B. (1995) The manufactured crisis. New York:

Harper Collins.

Bloomberg. 2013. News corp to pay Joel Klein $2 million a year

salary in education unit. Retrieved December 1, 2013

http://bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-01-04/news_corp-s-

klein-gets-2-million-a-year-salary-signing-bonus.html.

Bomotti, S, Ginsberg, R., Cobb B. (1999) Teachers in charter and

traditional schools. Retrieved from

http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/557

Brown, J., Gutstein, E., Lipman, P. (2009, Spring). Arne Duncan

and the Chicago success story: Myth or reality? Rethinking

Schools online. 23(3), 1-10. Retrieved from

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/23_03/arne233.shtml

Carnoy, M., Jacobsen, R., Mishel, L. & Rothstein, R. (2005). The

charter school dust-up: Examining the evidence on enrollment and achievement.

Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute

56

Center for Public Education (2010). Charter schools: Finding out the facts:

At a glance. Retrieved from

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/apps/nlnet/cont

ent3.aspx?c=lvIXIiN0JwE&b=5868097&ct=8089273&notoc=1

Dingerson, L., Miner, B., Peterson, B., and Walters, S. (2008).

Keeping the promise: the debate over charter schools. Milwaukee, WI:

Rethinking Schools

Duncan, Arne. Remarks of the U.S. Secretary of Education to the

National Education Association, July 2, 2009. San Diego, CA.

unpublished text.

Editors of Rethinking Schools. (2009, autumn). Where is our

community organizer-in chief? Rethinking Schools online. 24I(1), 1-

3, Retrieved from

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/24_01/24_01_chief.s

html

Emery, K. & O’Hanian, S. (2004). Why is corporate America bashing our

public schools? Portsmouth, N. H.: Heinemann.

Frakenberg, E. & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2009, November). Equity

overlooked: Charter schools and civil rights policy. The

Civil Rights Project.

57

Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few

graduate. Retrieved from Google Scholar.

Giroux, H. (2008). Against the terror of neoliberalism: Politics beyond the age of

greed. Boulder, CO: Paradigm publishers.

Harvey, D (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. UK: Oxford University

Press.

Hooda, S. 2012. Charter school options for Latinos gain attention

due to Chicago’s teacher’s strike. The Huffington Post.

Retrieved December 29, 2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/charter-schools-

latinos_n_1874885.html.

Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. New

York: Picador.

Kolderie, Ted (2005, June). Budde and the origins of the ‘charter concept.’

St. Paul, MN. Education/Evolving: A joint venture of the

Center for Policy Studies and Hamline University.

Lazarin, M. & Ortiz-Lincon, F. (2010). Next generation charter

schools: Meeting the needs of Latinos and English language

learners. Retrieved http://www.americanprogress.org.

58

Magee, M. (2013, December 10). Charter schools surge in nation,

state. San Diego Union. Tribune.

Minnesota Legislative Reference Library. Resources on Minnesota

issues: charter schools. Retrieved from

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/charter.asp.

Moll, L. (2003). Engaging life: Funds of knowledge approach to

multicultural education. Presentation at American Educational

Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Montaño, T. & Aoki, L. (2011). Manufactured Consent: Latino/a

Themed Charter Schools. In P.R. Carr & B.J. Porfilio (Eds.),

The Phenomenon of Obama and the…

National Council of La Raza. (2004, September). Janet Murguia

acknowledges the role played by NCLR-affliliated charter

schools in educating Hispanic children in Texas. News Release.

Retrieved from

http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/27074/?print=1

National Council of La Raza (2009) Charter school development

initiative. Retrieved from

http://www.nclr.org/section//charter_school/

59

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Status and trends in

the education of hispanics. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/PUBSEARCH/pubsinfo.

Newton, X. A., Rivero, R., Fuller, B. & Dauter, L. (2011).

Teacher Stability and Turnover in Los Angeles: The Influence

of Teacher and School Characteristics. Los Angeles School

Infrastructure Project. Working Paper. Policy Analysis for California

Education, PACE.

Plank, D. N., Arsen, D., & Sykes, G. (2000). Charter Schools and

Private Profits - Educational management organizations.

Retrieved

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JSD/is_5_57/ai_77382

336/

Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How

testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books

Saltzman and Gabbard. (2003) Education as Enforcement: The

Militarization and Corporatization of Schools, a collection

edited by Kenneth J. Saltzman and David A. Gabbard,

Publishers

60

Sanchez, E. L. (2012). Charter Schools: Closing or widening the

education gap for Latinos? Retrieved on December 1, 2013

http://www.nbclatino/2012/09/21/charter-schools-for-latinos-

closing-or-widening -the-gap/

Sarason, S. B. (1998). Charter schools: Another flawed educational reform?

New York: Teachers College Press.

Sawchuk, S. (2009, July 7). NEA, Obama administration may not be

in sync. Retrieved July 7, 2009. Education Week from

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/07/07/36nea.h28.html?

tkn=LSYFSknEJnyYL4ousJUPNCGBw0rKXOHE2JJB

Steiner, L., Way, A., and Hassel, B. (2006) Assessment of charter

schools program dissemination funding. Retrieved August 6,

2010 from http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/845

UNO website. Who are we: UNO charter schools. Retrieved November

1, 2013 from http://unocharterschools.org.who_are_we.

Von Zastrow, Claus (2010, May 3). Can traditional public schools share the

limelight with charters? Learning First Alliance. Washington, D.C.

Retrieved August 6, 2010 from

http://www.learningfirst.org/can-traditional-public-schools-

share-limelight-charters

61

Wells, A. S. (2002). Where charter school policy fails: The

problems of accountability and equity. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Weiher, G. R., and Tedin, K. (2002). Does choice lead to racially

stratified schools? Charter schools and household

preferences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21:1.

Weiner, Lois. (2007, September-October). A lethal threat to U.S.

teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education.   58.4 274(13).