Why Isn't Obama Afraid To Take On The Teachers' Unions?
Greg Foster writes for PJM:
A critical mass of the "social justice" folks are realizing that the unions have been taking them to the cleaners for a generation. For decades, the unions have screamed about how schools are desperately underfunded and they need more money. For decades, the social justice folks bought this story and put themselves on the line to extract more taxpayer money for schools. For decades, the school-monopoly blob absorbed the money and nothing got any better.The social justice folks are wise to this now. And they're not happy about it.
I can't see into Obama's mind. But the way things look from where I sit, this is the parsimonious explanation that covers all the facts. Obama realizes that the social justice folks are angry at the unions, and he wants to position himself to benefit from that.
The catch is: two organizations have soaked up massive amounts of education money - while school quality has dropped massively. Those two organizations are: unions and the federal government.
Get the federal government out of the picture and the union problem is solved too. In the current system, rocking the boat in any major way is dangerous, because federal funding may be cut off. As soon local schools are off of the federal teat, they can set their own standards - and decide individually whether or not to deal with unions.
Sadly, there is absolutely no chance of Obama eliminating the federal Department of Education.
bradley13 at March 15, 2010 2:46 AM
I take this with a big sack of salt. One time does not make the change of position. This might just be a political move to sort of say I feel your pain to parents of public school children who feel let down by unionized schools. Also this is not Obama doing anything this is Obama/Administration just commenting on something they really can not get into.
John Paulson at March 15, 2010 3:34 AM
I'm not buying it either. I'll give Obama a certain amount of credit for recognizing that government intervention is causing major problems for American families and culture. But as a true statist, he thinks that more intervention can fix it -- it's a bit like Gorbachev thinking that he could fix communism.
Bradley, I agree that the Department of Education needs to be eliminated, but that won't solve this particular problem. The teachers' unions were already a barrier to improvement as early as the 1960s, before the DoE existed.
Cousin Dave at March 15, 2010 7:45 AM
Vouchers. A little competition will solve most of the problems.
1. The private schools will be much harder to unionize as they just won't have the budgets to do so and stay open. Who is starting a pension plan at this point?
2. The education establishment may finally be shamed into change when the schools they praise empty out. The City of Detroit public schools win quality awards every year from political cronies who can't afford to have them recognized for what they are after 50 years of their efforts.
3. The poor and middle class can't escape the bad schools in their neighborhoods because they can't afford private school while still paying for public schools. Even if only 10% of them take advantage of the opportunity, it's a win for those children who want to learn.
Christopher in Detroit at March 15, 2010 8:16 AM
My daughter is a teacher. When she was in junior high, she once wrote in a school assignment that she only learned things at home, she didn't seem to learn much at school.
Her teacher missed the point, and responded we should try to learn wherever we are. As if her failure to learn anything in a full school day was her own failure, and had nothing to do with the liberal PC program which dominated the day.
As a teacher, she says nothing has changed. The kids that are going to be educable are getting a big head start at home. Those who don't get it at home, and along the border that is most of them, cannot be effectively taught by a teacher in school.
irlandes at March 15, 2010 8:17 AM
You never know what you'll come across in the New York Times, but this blew my mind:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/education/14child.html?ref=us&pagewanted=all
It's all about Obama's plans for Version 2.0 of the No Child Left Behind act. The key quote is in the 4th paragraph:
"In addition, President Obama would replace the law's requirements that every American child reach proficiency in reading and math, which administration officials have called utopian, with a new national target that could prove equally elusive: that all students should graduate from high school prepared for college and a career."
So expecting kids to be able to read, write, & do basic arithmetic is utopian, but expecting those same kids to all graduate prepared for college & a career is perfectly reasonable!
Note also that this proposed legislation is all about the federal government. There's not one word in it addressing parents & the enormously important role that they're supposed to play in their children's education.
Martin (Ontario) at March 15, 2010 10:26 AM
"So expecting kids to be able to read, write, & do basic arithmetic is utopian, but expecting those same kids to all graduate prepared for college & a career is perfectly reasonable!"
Coming next: a federal mandate that all employers run things so that at least 30% of their jobs do not require any of the utopian skills...reading, writing, 'rithmetic.
david foster at March 15, 2010 1:49 PM
The sooner the Federales get their jack-boots off the throats of America's schoolchildren, the sooner we can get back to teaching the truth: Jesus rode a dinosaur and Satan is black.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 15, 2010 4:46 PM
all students should graduate from high school prepared for college and a career
This is a meaningless standard. Most the Community Colleges around here don't even require a HS dipolma or GED. It would seem most all students already meet this standard. The four-year state schools have a higher standard though again it depends on the paticular school. A couple of them, pretty much a HS dipolma/GED is good enough. The private colleges, well you need to be in the top 5% of the school to get in but probably the top 50% could manage to do the work. So what does this mean?
How does shifting college standards work into this?
The Former Banker at March 15, 2010 7:00 PM
Leave a comment