Because if the vise-like grip of the stridently leftwing teachers unions is loosened and the schools are freed from their grasp, they can be returned to community control and students can be freed from the relentless diet of leftwing propaganda they're fed.

Breaking the back of the teachers unions will not only benefit our public schools, but will benefit society as a whole because it will be the end of one of the left's largest voting blocs and most lucrative source of campaign contributions.

Posted by: erp at September 28, 2005 11:09 AM

Because some animals are more equal than others?

Greed?

Many, many public school teachers see themselves as Marxist shock-troops, whose role is to transform society from what it is to what the intelligencia desires it to be. They are self-defined enemies of America as it it.

It is a matter of bitter irony that this monster should have been brought to term in Blaine Amendment anti-Catholicism. The fools in those days had imagined that they could gather the taxing and destroying power to themselves and never have it used against them.

Shift now to the present day. It is most true that teachers' unions are a cynical, self-serving gang. They are a formidable force, just because many Americans are fairly satisfied with public schools the way they are. Fortunately, teacher's unions have made common cause with most of the other gangs of folk-enemies, and they have painted themselves into a political corner as power shifts away from that side. "Live by the sword, die by the sword," is the maxim which applies here.

All that "Heather has Two Mommies" business, all the multiculturalism, all the Darwinism is coming down on them.

Their future is satifyingly bleak. Exactly because the left has been successful in federalizing much of society and the economy, public education has a single neck which may be grasped in one hand. It couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch.

How have teachers become the martyrs of modern times? Their demands consistently come down to more money and making their jobs easier with the quality of education seldom being mentioned unless it somehow accomplishes one of those two goals (ie small class size). Yet most people I know think they are poor self-sacrificing victims.

The teachers in Marysville, WA went on strike a while back even though they make an average of $55k per year. Their reason? They were going to be required to work 188 days instead of 180. For that the kids missed a month of school.

"many Americans are fairly satisfied with public schools the way they are"

Do you really think so? And what would be your explanation?

If people were satisfied with the public schools why would so many sacrifice to send their kids to private or parochial schools and why is home schooling now a force to be reckoned with?

Robert Schwartz, erp, Lou Gots:

Lou is right, many parents are fairly satisfied with public education. Some of the satisfaction is justified as the schools do a respectable job with forming minds and building character. Other parents are happy because the school provides day-care warehousing. Others just go with whatever is on offer.

That said, there is increasing desire for something better, and sacrifices are made to obtain it.

Asking white parents to accept incoming black students is more sacrifice than they're willing to make.

Luciferous, Good point. Back in the 50's and 60's my prents sacrificed to send eight of us through Catholic schools, althought the public schools were decent. The value they held was the religios training and education. I'm very grateful for that sacrifice.

Luciferous, I don't mean to be judgmental, I just wonder how much contact have you've had with the public schools over the past twenty or so years?

Asking white parents to accept incoming black students is more sacrifice than they're willing to make.

Maybe for some, but the parents I know best accepted the blacks being in the school as long as the teachers focused on their white kids. NCLB has driven them absolutely mad since the teachers have to take time away from their children to help the disadvantaged pass the mandatory tests.

My Dad was a teacher for 35 years and I don't recall him being a Marxist shock troop. I know plenty of his colleagues pretty well and I don't think any of them considered themselves to be Marxist shock troops. Dad always liked the NEA because they helped him get paid enough so that we could live above the poverty line back in the 70's.

Gov, The difference is between the rank and file and the leadership.

I taught elementary school in a big city for two years. One of the things I observed in the belly of the beast is that the system is heavily skewed against children who are academicaly advanced. Specifically, techniques used to teach literacy in early childhood are those which are best for the worst readers, and which are ill-suited to the needs of those who are prepared to read at higher levels.

Principles of inclusion had eliminated significant tracking. Advanced readers were expected to spend their time on the same phonics drills helpful for those who could not recognize letters of the alphabet.

It gets worse and worse. I received pressure to "flatten" the scores I was recording on objective assessments. My sharp kids were doing too well. I was "pushing" them, I was told.

At the end of my second year, my five best students bailed out of the system, every single one of them. Guess who followed them out the door?

As to the politics of my colleagues, a lot of them were old-timers, in their last couple of years before retirement, with rather conservative instincts. They mostly ignored these instincts when it came to politics. Because of their narrow economic self-interest, they resembled nothing so much as bunch of red-diaper grandchildren, griping about Bush at lunchtime while they passed around copies of articles from The Nation.