Thursday, February 24, 2011

Unions Have Ruined Public Education

Education in our country must be re-vamped. The best way to do this is to provide citizens with a non-monopolistic choice, allowing taxpayers to support educational entities which provide superior instruction.


I spent 30 years teaching in the classrooms of public schools. There, I worked with many committed teachers who were devoted to providing excellent instruction. However, there were many among the ranks who had neither the ability nor desire to be an effective teacher. However, the NEA and local unions protected these liabilities, and administrators were powerless to get the “dead wood” out. Who suffered? First the children, then the community, and ultimately, the country at large. At one time, unions protected employees from abusive employers; now they’ve grown into political monsters that are out of control. They control the teachers’ contributions to the point where a teacher has no say in the union whatsoever, if that teacher elects to have his “political contribution” withheld from his dues. The unions are dominated by liberals who promise continued pay raises irrespective of the economy, increased benefits, and increased academic freedom. As a result, there is virtually no power of community standards which can touch the local public school.


Ironically, whether or not a community agrees with the ideology of the liberal movement, they end up supporting it. How? Well, the payroll of a public school is funded by the taxpayers. In most states, unions are a closed shop proposition - the employee has no choice and must belong. A significant percentage of the employee’s dues to the union end up as political contributions to the NEA. - one of the biggest and most liberal unions in the country. The NEA backs liberal candidates 100% of the time. It’s a racket!


Leftist agendas are now firmly entrenched in the entire educational model. College students seeking to become future teachers are indoctrinated as to what is “open minded” and politically correct. As a matter of course, tomorrow’s teachers learn curricula which presumes that global warming caused by human technology is a FACT. That evolution is a FACT, and that evaluation of concepts such as “intelligent design” (such as Creation) are not only baseless and mythical, they MUST be excluded due to “Separation of Church and State.” Instruction in literature is increasingly based on stories which attack traditional values. Geography focuses less on knowledge of traditional geographical concepts, but more on an agenda of globalization.


Because of budgetary considerations, when teacher openings exist, who gets hired? Thanks to the union pay scale, teachers on the bottom of the pay scale - those fresh out of college. The ranks quickly fill with freshly indoctrinated teachers eager to push their college-learned agenda down the throats of their students. They have no experience nor wisdom. Most have no children of their own, and consequently cannot understand the angst of parents feeling helpless over what goes on in the classroom. Most have never held a job in the private sector, and sadly, are completely out of touch that their salary comes from the taxpayer. Oh, but they have energy. When a staff turnover happens quickly, the result is the ranks fill with rookie teachers, too arrogant to listen to the older and fewer mentors, anxious to fill coaching and advising positions to beef up their paycheck, but often having no work ethic in terms of working on their profession a minute past 3:00; after all, the contract doesn’t require it.


In defense of the public schools, unlike private businesses, they are not allowed to choose the “workers” by whom they are measured. In other words, school success is now measured by standardized test scores, drop-out rates, and graduation numbers. If you were an employer of a private company, you’d be very selective about which “employees” you accepted to help your company reach the top. However, public schools do not get to turn away students who will ultimately accomplish the results by which the school is measured. Public schools take on drug addicts, children who are abused and neglected, criminals, the learning disabled, the illegal immigrant, and more. Based on the community being considered, the resultant scores, drop-out rates, and graduation numbers might have very little to do with the quality of instruction.


Additionally, the pressure to improve the school’s standing can, and does, lead to dishonest practices within the school. In my community, a black athlete attended fewer than two years of high school, and at the time of what would be his senior year, was allowed to take tests for the classes he missed - put in a room where he used his cell phone to access Cha-Cha (an online answer-providing service), and ultimately the district falsified his transcript by adding classes he never attended - all so this minority kid could graduate and not be a drop-out statistic. (I know this because his parents are some of our closest friends. They completely opposed the school is this action but were ignored.)


Originally, public education in our country existed to teach children to read, and read primarily the Bible. Anyone can look at the contents of a hornbook if they doubt this. Harvard University began as a college to prepare pastors. And why read the Bible? Because it served to provide insight as to the values embraced by the people, thus acting as a common “cement” for our country.


Today? Today we read news stories of a boy in elementary school being suspended and required to get counseling because he told a friend that he would pray for his problems. Today, my children are required to sit in a “health” class wherein all students are expected to be sexually active, and learn the mechanics of homosexuality. Today, learning about the Constitution is ignored or marginalized. Today, most students can tell you about Martin Luther King, Jr, but have never heard of James Madison, and if they know who wrote the Declaration of Independency, it’s probably that white slave owner who raped Sally Hemings. Today, they know nothing of Latin, but are encouraged to take Spanish so they can show sensitivity to illegals. Today, they learn that diversity is good and that there are no real right answers to moral problems; that to express any value as worthy is paramount to intolerance, (and thereby show intolerance for opposing viewpoints other than those espoused by liberalism).


For those of us who truly believe that competition in the marketplace leads to excellence in product, why do we continue to give public education a monopoly? Please point to any historical example of a monopoly that provided the best product at the best price. Granted, parents may choose to homeschool or send their children to existing private schools, but their taxes are monopolistically fed to the public school system.


Opponents of the voucher argue that this would cause a flight of the upper mild class families and leave the “at-risk” children in public schools. Further, private schools are not held to the same standards in terms of testing. As to the first point, giving the opportunity to make money, there would be scores of schools cropping up with the niche in mind to address “at-risk” kids. If parents were neglectful and didn’t capitalize on the opportunity, perhaps it would be time to evaluate the appropriateness of trying to teach a drug baby about metaphor and simile, and hoping that he’ll be able to pass geometry. Maybe bringing in illegal aliens who had a third grade education in Mexico and putting him in an 8th grade English class studying persuasive writing is a disservice to everyone. Perhaps, some of these students need to be given a break from the template of going to college and given a meaningful education on being a valuable citizen with work ethics, personal economics, and societal needed workers among the blue collar ranks. There is no shame in that; society cannot exist without those workers!


Much of the reason our society is in shambles is due to the educational system - the very one we hope will keep our country moving in the right direction. By allowing liberalism to control our public school system, we are guaranteed a society which fosters liberalism, where competition is a bad thing, religion is a bad thing, marriage is a bad thing, the free market is a bad thing, and the Founding Fathers - well they were all bad as well. Brainwash the children, and you can be guaranteed of a future similar to what we see among generations of welfare and entitlement recipients. It becomes self-perpetuating.


In 2012, Conservatives face an opportunity to take the Senate and potentially the Oval Office. If there was any one time in my lifetime I’d say we are ripe for educational overhaul, it is now. Let the NEA dominate the public schools. BUT, Congress (and hopefully the Executive branch) need to push through tax allowances for parents to take their children elsewhere.


When I taught in Central Washington (prior to 2007), I wanted to impress upon the students how much it cost the taxpayers to pay for their education. I spoke with the district financial people to get specifics. By the time all money was factored in and averaged, it ran a little over $7,000 per student - in Central Washington! Why should a family who chooses to have their child educated in other than a public school not be allotted that money, by way of a voucher, or other such mechanism? If taxpayers had access to that money to spend on a school of their choosing, 1) private schools would be springing up right and left, 2) there would be an exodus of previous captive patrons, and 3) public schools would be forced to become competitive or become a holding cell for those who would not be accepted nor tolerated elsewhere.


And that’s the primordial fear among public school teachers. Their argument is that only the at-risk children, who did not have an advocate would remain, and that would be a grave disparity among the haves and have nots. My snide question in response would be, “Why would it? Wouldn’t those children have the BEST teachers and smaller class sizes?” But let’s assume that argument is valid. Wouldn’t that force our society to deal with the root issues of “at-risk.” I mean, is it possible that perhaps a mother and father in a stable home makes for a stable society? Or could it be that values instilled through faith in God make sense for a cohesive and law-abiding civilization? Might it be that fostering homosexuality and promiscuity has no place in the classroom? Maybe a place of learning does not tolerate in-class texting, profanity, and a blatant disregard and disrespect for authority.


It is my belief that focusing on school choice is critical in 2012. The tactic should not be to demonize public schools (even though that is the temptation). In the heart of this Tea Party phenomenon, people know that iron sharpens iron. Competition produces a better product. People who are allowed to take their children to the educational source of their choosing will set the direction of the marketplace, and schools will truly reflect the desires of the American people as opposed to the dictates of the liberal university system.


Consequently, I implore you to rally this cry. The time is ripe, and the opportunity should not be wasted.