Part and parcel of a living in a free society is the ability to make choices. For example, at election time our citizenry is allowed to choose between various political candidates running for public office. In countries where there is no freedom, so called “elections” are a sham because there is no choice, the ballots have but one candidate.
Here in the United States there is an ongoing battle over choice in education. On the one side there are those who seek greater freedom of choice for parents. Among the choices currently offered to a greater or lesser degree in various parts of our country are home schooling, school vouchers, and charter schools. On the other side there are those who seek to reduce or eliminate a parents right to choose the way they want their children educated. These seek to make public school attendance mandatory for ALL children.
Each of the alternatives I have mentioned are different. Each has been promoted or discouraged to greater or lesser degree at various times and places but to a parent, taken as a whole they represent choice in education. Each time one of those options is eliminated somewhere it can be said that a parent’s right to make choices concerning the education of their children has been negatively affected.
I believe our current president is no friend of school choice for parents. I have several points to mention in support of this statement. First is the Washington DC. school voucher plan the Obama Administration ended. In case you are unfamiliar with the story read this article.
This is a direct assault on freedom of choice in education. It is an action taken by Arne Duncan, President Obama’s selection for Secretary of Education. It can and should be cited as a concrete example that our current president does not favor choice in education.
Which leads me to my second point, and one which was mentioned in the article I quoted above. I think one of the reasons Obama has and will continue to demonstrate resistance to choice in education is that both he and the Democratic party are financially beholden to teacher unions in a big way and will not oppose the wishes of those unions in the area of educational choice. From the above-cited article:
It’s clear, though, from how the destruction of the program is being orchestrated, that issues such as parents’ needs, student performance and program effectiveness don’t matter next to the political demands of teachers’ unions. Congressional Democrats who receive ample campaign contributions from the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers laid the trap with budget language that placed the program on the block. And now comes Mr. Duncan with the sword. (emphasis mine)
It has been rightly said to get a true sense of what an organization supports one need only to follow the money. Just a cursory glance at the political contributions made by the NEA shows the virtual political alignment of that teacher’s union and the Democratic party. (read this article) And given the money spent by this union in support of an almost entirely Democratic slate is it unreasonable to assume our current president and Democrat-controlled congress will seek to do their bidding?
From the article cited in the previous paragraph let me point out the following quote:
There’s been a lot in the news recently about published opinion that parallels donor politics. Well, last year the NEA gave $45,000 to the Economic Policy Institute, which regularly issues reports that claim education is underfunded and teachers are underpaid. The partisans at People for the American Way got a $51,000 NEA contribution; PFAW happens to be vehemently anti-voucher.
The extent to which the NEA sends money to states for political agitation is also revealing. For example, Protect Our Public Schools, an anti-charter-school group backed by the NEA’s Washington state affiliate, received $500,000 toward its efforts to block school choice for underprivileged children.
So the NEA has contributed money to groups that are both anti-voucher and anti-charter schools. Given the Obama administrations stated support of charter schools elsewhere this can at best be considered a mixed message though I doubt anyone would think of it as a ringing endorsement of parental choice in education. ( I acknowledge the WSJ article is more than 3 years old, but does anyone want to make the claim that the NEA zebra has recently changed its stripes?)
Point three and potentially most pernicious is President Obama’s support of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. (See harmonicminers earlier blog on this subject) While not yet adopted by the US, the potential for elimination of parent choice in education is there if this is embraced by the current administration. (If you have any doubt about Obama’s willingness to accede to the demands of the United Nations, even at the cost of our sovereignty, read this article about his sponsorship of Senate bill 2433). Of note too is the author cited by harmonicminer. He is co-founder, chairman and general counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association. This organization did not come about because our government has a track record of embracing homeschooling (as an educational choice), and this current president has shown time and time again he favors greater governmental intrusion and control over almost everything. One might say it has the potential of a perfect storm, brewing on the horizon for parents who wish to exercise freedom of choice in the education of their children.
July 2nd, 2009 6:58 pm
Since you didn’t want to respond on the previous thread I posted this on…
Hey, Hey – looks like the Obama Administration continues to push for policies that the Teachers Unions don’t like:
Duncan to push for teachers’ merit pay:
Things continue to come out showing that the Obama Administration is more than willing to challenge the Teachers’ Unions.
July 2nd, 2009 10:23 pm
Dave
You wrote:
Surely you and I can agree this article you cite is about a speech to be given on the topic of merit pay. It is most certainly not about anything else. It would be foolish of you to use this as some sort of general proof-text regarding Obama and his relationship with the NEA and AFT, nor do I think you intend it as such (at least I hope not).
Furthermore the term “merit pay” remains largely undefined. I tend to agree with harmonicminer on this point. It remains to be seen what “merit pay” will end up looking like if and when something of the sort becomes a reality. In my cynicism about Obama I think he will end up with “merit pay” that meets with the (reluctant) approval of the unions and will be a very watered down concept of what we understand the idea to mean. If it falls short of Obama’s goal he can still run about claiming “victory”, the teacher unions can also run about claiming they halted the notion of such “unfair and entirely subjective practices”, and the status quo will remain relatively unchanged. It will be a win-win but lacking any substance.
I have done some additional reading about Secretary Duncan and his history with Chicago Public Schools.
Seems his notion of charter schools has not exactly been met with great enthusiasm, especially in poorer neighborhoods where he has sought to eliminate local controls over school choice issues in favor of a centralized “take-it-or-leave-it system. In fact it would seem to support my contention that this administration is no friend of parental control or parental choice when it comes to education. (However Duncan and Obama ARE old basketball buddies which certainly seems to carry a lot of weight in Washington D.C. these days. I wonder if Ms. Sotomayor ever played hoops…it would explain a lot! )
As far as it goes on your point I hope you are absolutely right. I think a merit pay system that rewards better teachers and provides incentives to achieve excellence is a step in the right direction. But as I have pointed out, talk is just talk, and actions speak much louder than words. The only significant educational action taken by this administration so far has been the Washington D.C voucher program elimination. The teacher unions are joined at the hip to the Democratic party and it remains to be seen just how far astray Obama is able or willing to go from toeing the party line. As I have written in the above blog, there isn’t much to be excited about if you are a parent in this country who wants to exercise control over their child’s education.
You said:
I say: Things continue to come out showing that the Obama administration is more than willing to TALK ABOUT challenging the Teacher’s Unions. And as I have shown there are a lot of rea$on$ why the challenge may be purely symbolic.
July 6th, 2009 10:28 am
Interesting article. It seems to support your ideas that you have about Duncan and local control, but it also directly refutes your idea that Obama (and in turn Duncan) are in the pockets of the unions. It also explicitly says that Duncan’s push towards privatization and charter schools are likely to be key proponents of his agenda in DC.
I find it pretty interesting that you continue to write off any thing that I post related to the idea that Obama is not in the back pocket of unions.
You claim that a speech is not enough. You complain that Obama is talking about it rather than doing it. As if Obama would willingly go to the teachers unions and tell them what they don’t want to hear just for the sake of doing it.
I have continually posted stories about Obama supporting charter schools, which you had said he opposed. I have posed stories about Obama supporting merit pay, which, according to you, is impossible because Obama would never support anything that the teachers unions didn’t support. Even the story that you linked to backs my position up.
It is funny, because I have been told that I must support any assertion that I say, but you continue to claim that Obama is opposed to things in direct contrast to his words. You continue to say that Obama will only do things that the unions support, even though he is directly telling the unions something very different.
How much evidence do you need before you admit that may be wrong about Obama/Duncan’s education agenda?
July 6th, 2009 10:38 am
Let me put it this way, although amuzikman can certainly speak for himself.
Obama will not do anything that angers the unions sufficiently that they will stop supporting him. Even if it can be shown to be something that improves education for poor and at-risk students.
It really doesn’t matter so much what he says in speeches. The policies and legislation he supports that have actual impact “on the ground” are the ones that matter.
For example, on the topic of “merit pay,” at the Saddleback Forum, Obama said he was for it, but only if the teachers agreed on the criteria by which they would be judged… e.g., let the unions decide how merit pay will be assigned.
That’s pretty much like saying that you’re for stiff sentences for violent crime, but only in the offenders agree on the criteria by which they would be judged….
In other words, everything I ever hear Obama say has qualifications in it that nullify the presumed thrust of his statement. That allows him to claim to support every side of every issue, of course, depending on the audience to whom he speaks. We had another president like that, didn’t we? First name was BILL.
July 6th, 2009 11:35 am
FWIW, it would take a lot. The unions know that even if Obama angers them, he will still be substantially better than the alternative. That is the life of unions (or anyone, for that matter) supporting politicians – one must choose who is the best. Not who is perfect.
Well, first of all, this has to be true whether you like it or not. You cannot implement a merit pay system in a unionized school without the union agreeing to it.
Seriously? Violent criminal activity is not compared to the work that teachers do? They are not at all comparable.
But please tell me this – why would Obama (or have Duncan) go in front of the teachers unions and tell them he supports and plans on implementing (though I am unclear how he will be doing this from the federal level) something that the Unions, up to this point, have been adamantly opposed to. What does Obama gain by pissing them off?
July 6th, 2009 11:57 am
Not saying teachers are criminals, though some are nearly criminally bad.
Am saying that a law designed to regulate and manage a group that needs managing is going to be watered down to uselessness if the group to be regulated has veto power on it.
Imagine if someone suggested that the NRA should have final approval on whether or not a particular gun control law would be passed. You get the idea. Of course, the NRA IS a much more deserving group of such consideration than the teacher’s unions… so I’ll tell you what. I hereby agree that from now on, teachers unions get final say so on any law affecting education, teacher pay, etc., if you agree that no law regulating or limiting guns will be passed without full NRA approval.
And the reason Obama will have Duncan say things to the unions, in public speeches, that make him sound tough on the unions is obvious, isn’t it? He gets the political benefit of pretended moderation, while in fact doing nothing that actually changes the status quo significantly. A sort of minor Sista Soldja moment (not sure of the spelling, too lazy to look it up).
As far as merit pay goes, no legislature is REQUIRED by law to get union approval before implementing it. All they have to do is rewrite contracts for the next budget/contract cycle.
However, while merit pay might help a little, it’s a bandaid. There isn’t any way to implement it without yet another level of bureacracy (who watchers the evaluators who decide who gets the merit pay?). The real solution is voucher programs, with full portability, which will create an “invisible hand” version of merit pay by people voting with their feet.
To the extent that Obama does like merit pay, it’s still a “big government” solution that gives even more power to the government, more ability to make payoffs to supporters, etc.
July 6th, 2009 12:19 pm
Don’t they already? This is actually a really interesting example, considering that few (Republican and Democrat alike) in Washington are willing to do anything about guns that the NRA doesn’t approve.
Contract bargaining doesn’t work like that. You are right that there is no law that requires union approval for merit pay, but there are laws that govern how labor contracts work. And “management” (i.e. school adminstrators) cannot make unilateral changes to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), or anything that is governed by the cba, without union approval. And they cannot just simply “rewrite contracts.” Any contract has to be agreed to by both sides.
Vouchers are only real solutions if they truly cover the cost of private education. And I have seen very few (not saying that they don’t exist) such programs. So instead of creating parental choices, what they really do is just subsidize private education for those who already can (or almost can) afford to go to such schools, which in turn just perpetuates the cycle of racial and economic inequality by moving rich (mostly white students) out of the public school system and into the expensive private school system.
July 6th, 2009 12:33 pm
Dave, you implied that Obama HAD to have the union’s approval for any merit pay system. He does not, any more than the NRA’s approval was required for the 1994 Assault Rifle Ban. Political reality at a given moment is somewhat different than legal reality, and in fact your observation implying that Obama would have to get union approval for merit pay is what makes my point… he didn’t mean anything at all, and just gets “moderate brownie points” for saying it.
The legislature makes the laws that govern how union contracts work. They can change them if they want to, and can get a majority. And district contracts with unions DO expire now and then, which is what I meant by “budget/contract cycle”, allowing both sides to renegotiate. The legislature could mandate that any such new contract include strong merit pay provisions… but it won’t, of course, because the teacher’s unions are too strong in most places.
Vouchers WOULD cover the cost of private education if they were funded properly. The districts in many areas get PLENTY of money per pupil to fund most private schools, which are far from elitist institutions, by and large, and generally serve a very humble clientele, in my personal experience.
Public education is just about the worst financial deal the tax payers get, next to publicly funded healthcare like medicare and medicaid, maybe.
The point of vouchers is that they allow students and parents to choose.
The notion that NOT having vouchers is going to stop “the cycle of racial and economic inequality” is disproved by the current facts on the ground. Vouchers would help, which is why the very poorest, and “least equal”, want them the most.
July 6th, 2009 12:36 pm
Oh, I was just reminded that another of the “worst deals taxpayers get” is Social Security, the laughably misnamed elder welfare system.
July 6th, 2009 2:37 pm
Dave:
The subject of this blog is parental choice in education. The article I quoted explains how Duncan has moved to eliminate local parental control in parts of Chicago Public schools. My ideas have nothing to do with it. The article also gives a pretty good window into what the terms “privatization” and “charter schools” may look like in the future of an Obama administration. We can spar all day long about the idea of whether Obama does or does not support charter schools – that’s not the point. If local public schools are shut down by the government, and if (often poorer) families are left with moving their child to another school farther away, this does NOTHING to promote choice for parents. In fact it often gives them less choice and less input into the education their children are getting.
I have done nothing of the sort. I have read every word you have written as well as every word of every article you cite as source. (can you make the same claim?) In the previous thread I responded in detail to your article, using it to point out what I felt were important points to consider in our discussion. In this post I have tried to refocus the discussion into what I think really matters on the subject – parental choice and control over the education of their children. I have made what I feel to be a fairly thought-provoking, if not compelling case that teacher unions are no friend of parents in the matter of educational choice. Obama and other Democrats have taken millions in campaign contributions from teacher unions, so forgive me if I am skeptical of Obama’s willingness to bite the hand that feeds him.
I said nothing of the sort. I said speech is only speech. Shall we begin to go through the litany of broken Obama campaign promises? In the world of politics, speech means less than nothing sometimes. But action is something tangible to which one can point. The actions of a politician are rarely random. They speak to understanding what future actions on the part of that politician will likely be. Again I remind you this blog is on the topic of parent choice in education. Laying aside what may or may not have been said by members of the Obama administration, let me ask you – what ACTIONS has this administration taken that point to support of parents choice in their child’s education?
The last thing I said on the subject of charter schools: it is, at best, a mixed message that is being sent, given what is being SAID by Duncan vs what has been DONE by the NEA.
As I have already stated words to a politician are a means to an end, they are not a promise, an oath, a pact, or a contract. ALL politicians use words to get what they want – and there is a daily mountain of evidence to show that politicians don’t worry about truth when speaking. So from the Department of Redundancy Department let me repeat myself – “words” and “telling” do not carry the same weight as “doing”.
Tell you what… Why don’t you ask those parents of the canceled voucher system in Washington D.C. this question?
July 7th, 2009 7:09 am
Except it was the point originally, until you realized that it you were wrong about Obama’s position on charter schools, so you have no changed the point of the discussion.
This is really what it comes down to.
You think that because the NEA does something, then Obama will do the same. Even though Obama continues to say that he will do differently.
There is no question that the teachers unions support Obama. And I have already explained what this means – they pick the best candidate, not the perfect candidate. And Obama has done and will continue to do many things that piss of Labor. And that includes pushing for charter schools and merit pay for teachers.
July 7th, 2009 7:28 pm
Dave
I’m going to have one more go at this and then I’ll be done and moving on. Between this and the other thread I think we have mined this vein for all the ore.
As I said before, my perspective on all of this boils down to who is in control of my child’s education. Is it me as a parent? Or is it the ever-growing, increasingly intrusive federal government under the almost unstoppable Obama administration and the Democratic Party? Look at what has happened to individual liberty in this country since Obama took office. It is naive to think that within the current virtual Marxist environment that you as a parent will end up with more control and more options for your child’s education. I have real concern that quite the opposite will happen. I am trying to put the charter school issue in a broader context. It really doesn’t make much sense to talk about charter schools in a vacuum. If you want to believe I “changed the point of the discussion” because I am wrong, then fine – I’m wrong. Only time will truly tell. In the mean time I remain skeptical of what may happen.
Make no mistake about it – I hope I am wrong. I want to be wrong. But I don’t think I am. And I think your position is naive.
You said:
I say:
You think that Obama will actually stand in opposition to the NEA, and your proof is his rhetoric and that of his Secretary of Education? Hardly convincing proof, given Obama’s well-documented penchant for speaking persuasively and say substantively nothing.
You said:
I say:
I disagree with your characterization and explanation, that is unless we can first agree on a define of the word, “best”. Labor unions, PACs, large corporations, etc, don’t care about who is best, with respect to platform and policy. These groups seek to influence politicians in order to further their own agenda. And influence is bought and paid for with campaign contributions. The NEA and AFT have contributed heavily to Obama and other Democrats precisely because they know it has bought political influence. These politicians are not going to turn on those who contribute or their sources of funding will dry up, the contributions going to some other candidate more willing to promote the contributor’s agenda. Time will tell how this will play out but I still don’t think Obama will substantively DO anything to upset teacher unions though he may SAY some things that do.