AFT Loves Democracy Until Parents Might Approve a Charter School

Proposed Resolution 13 offers AFT’s solution to charter school “accountability”: require every charter application to win approval from local voters before it can even be submitted to the relevant chartering authority.

It sounds democratic. It is really a political obstacle course.

Imagine applying the same rule elsewhere. Before a new grocery store could open, the existing grocery stores could organize a parishwide vote. Before a new hospital entered a market, the incumbent hospital and its employees could campaign to block it. Nobody would confuse that with accountability. It would be protectionism.

Charter schools should absolutely face financial transparency, academic standards, and consequences for failure. Public dollars require public accountability. But AFT’s proposal goes beyond oversight. It gives an entire voting area, including people whose children would never attend the school, power to stop families from gaining another option.

The union understands the advantage. Established school systems have employees, vendors, political relationships, taxpayer-funded communications networks, and organized union members. Parents seeking a new school usually have jobs, children, and limited time. A local election would not be a neutral test of quality. It would be a contest between an entrenched institution and scattered families.

The funniest part is that charter enrollment is already voluntary. The most relevant voters are parents, and they cast a ballot by choosing whether to enroll their children. If the school is bad, families can leave. Traditional systems rarely offer parents that same immediate power.

AFT calls its plan accountability. A better name would be a competitor veto.

Real accountability means transparent finances, measurable results, and closure when a school persistently fails. It does not mean letting the existing system hold an election before parents are permitted another door.