All this talk about who supports education and who doesn't reminds me of a blog post by Russell Roberts of GMU from about this time last year regarding the teachers’ union endorsement of political candidates.
“…the goals of teachers and teachers'
unions often conflict with the goals of parents and students. Parents (and even
sometimes students) want teachers to work hard at educating their children.
Many teachers want to work hard. But they also like not working hard sometimes.
And the unions frequently (always?) oppose changes in educational policy that
might make them work harder. The unions support pay raises for teachers
unconnected to performance, something many parents would favor [i.e. would
favor performance pay]. There is always a tension between employee and
employer, no matter how dedicated the employee. That is why we pay people and
monitor performance. We don't just assume that the level of effort and care is
the same regardless of the incentives in place.
I
explain to my children that the [campaign] signs try and exploit a confusion we
might have between teachers and education. We're supposed to assume that a
candidate that is teacher recommended is pro-education. But the more accurate
assumption is that a candidate that is teacher recommended is simply
pro-teacher. Being pro-teacher does not make you pro-education and alas, can
often be a sign of being anti-education when the goals of teachers and parents
conflict as they inevitably do.”
Comments