Home - Vermonters for Better Education Home - David Kirkpatrick's pages Index

Last week's commentary noted two inconsistencies of teacher unions: when they stress the high quality of the teaching staff while also claiming higher salaries are needed to have a high quality staff, and, on a broader scale, defending the quality of the public school system while regularly arguing the need for more money to establish a quality system.
 
         The column also mentioned there is a longer list of such dissonance in union positions.
 
         Consider the establishment of vouchers so students could obtain an education of their or their parents' choice.  This faces total opposition from teacher unions, as is their right.  But the hypocrisy and inconsistency of that opposition is neither a right nor logically defensible.
 
         Time after time, in opposing such legislation they have argued that there is no research justifying it.  Not only is that incorrect, the evidence goes far beyond research, with practical working examples going back a century and a half or more.  But, for the sake of argument, assume there is no such research or examples.  The fair-minded approach would then be to support some limited programs to determine whether vouchers might be a valid and workable approach or not.
 
         Unions oppose that as well, conceivably because they rightfully suspect that the findings of such research will be positive.  In brief, their position is we don't know if vouchers work, and they don't want to know.
 
         And this is but one inconsistency in union opposition to this form of school choice. Another when legislation is being considered is, of course, to totally oppose it.  Being unsuccessful at that, as is increasingly the case, their fallback position is to weaken and limit the legislation as much as possible.
 
         One limitation is to keep the dollar amount of the voucher as low as possible.  Succeeding at that their next step is to belittle implementing the new program because it doesn't give students enough money to afford an expensive nonpublic school.
 
         A version of this tactic is to also limit the number of students eligible to use vouchers in a new program.  Having succeeded in that the unionists then shed crocodile tears about the majority of students who are "left behind" because of the number limitation.
 
         Wait a minute.  If the public system is as grand as the unions would have us believe, what is so terrible about being "left behind"?
 
         More seriously, if they were really serious in their sympathy for students whose financial vouchers are too limited in either size or number, the answer is simple: end their opposition that created these limitations in the first place  and give enough (all?) students enough dollars to make reasonable educational choices a reality for all.
 
         A more immediate and serious problem is one of regulation.  The unions, like the public school establishment generally, complains about excessive regulation of the public system.  Here they are on solid ground.  These limitations are what makes the system unworkable.  What few seem to notice is that it is the establishment that is the source of the great bulk of such laws and regulations.  Anyone who has worked closely withing the legislative system, as this writer has, knows the laws and restrictions rarely come from outside the system.  Further proof is presented if you observe what happens when attempts are made to loosen or remove such restrictions, such as adopting more reasonable approaches to teacher qualifications/certification.  Teacher unions head the list of those opposing such efforts.
 
         A variation of this problem are the union arguments regarding "a level playing field" for both public and nonpublic schools.  First, they have no problem with an extremely unlevel playing field in terms of public funding.  They want it all.  So their references to a level field always have to do with regulations.
 
         They have a point but do they propose to create a level field by removing the strings applied to the public system?  No.  Their idea of a level field is to similarly bind the nonpublic schools.
 
         In brief, the unions aren't serious.  They will argue any point from any angle that seems to serve their immediate needs.  Are they ignorant or just apathetic?
 
         They don't know and they don't care.

                                                         # # # # #
 
         "There are three things to be considered about an organization: what it offers to the public, what it offers to its own rank and file, and what it offers to the leaders.  The last of these too often, in practice, outweighs the other two." p. 50, Bertrand Russell, Understanding History, NY: Philosophical Library, 1957

                                                         # # # # #

Copyright 2007 David W. Kirkpatrick
108 Highland Court,
Douglassville, Pennsylvania 19518-9240
Phone: (610) 689-0633