Don’t you think that the AFT might think it’s in something of a zero-sum game — precisely because its brand is so much lower status than KIPP’s is these days?

I’ve got no beautiful mind, but I would bet that John Nash would agree — if you think you are in a zero-sum game, then you play for keeps — regardless of what the spectators think.

So if the AFT drives KIPP out of a couple of its New York schools, why won’t it think that couldn’t drive KIPP out of more elsewhere — and why wouldn’t it think that that would be a good idea?

There aren’t that many KIPP schools. The fewer KIPP schools there are, the harder it is to prove the case that traditional union contracts stand in the way of progress for kids.

What are the spectators going to do? Say the AFT is bad? Has that stopped them from trying to grow before?

You don’t have to think that the AFT doesn’t care for kids to imagine this scenario (that’s where I part ways with the fire-breathers above). If anything, the fact that the AFT thinks they’re right (KIPP and its friends are the true enemies of progress for kids) will only make them fight harder.

If I were running KIPP, I’d be very careful about appearing like you can be run off your “own” schools.

And some new union strategies!

I do not view you as a teacher union apologist, but rather was simply making the point that the normal practice of a KIPP Academy is very much at odds with typical union contracts.

As Cavalier Orange points out in the comment above, it is not at all the case that the education unions deserve the benefit of any doubt.

My take on this issue is almost 180 degrees from yours. I think there’s much at stake here and that the unions are likely to win.

Everyone knows that KIPP demands quite a bit more of its teachers than a traditional public school: giving out their cell phones numbers; staying at school longer; adhering to KIPP’s detailed, difficult protocols. This is radical stuff.

Unions, by definition, are a labor cartel. They represent the interests of both effective and ineffective teachers. Labor economists know unions bring wage compression, job protection, and increased employee autonomy in the classroom.

In short, unionization could conceivably do to KIPP what it did to the Detroit auto industry. Even if it doesn’t destroy the entire system, it could undermine it in subtler, only-slightly-less-disastrous ways.

If you think the unions are too high-minded to purposely sabotage the prospects of generations of disadvantaged kids just to retain a great deal of money and power, I humbly ask you to look at
another story from Detroit.

With respect, what the f does that even mean?

Compromise, right now, means victory for all.