Awhile back I posted about how being pro-teacher doesn't necessarily mean pro-education or pro-student. In fact, it often means quite the opposite. Todays Freeps has an excellent example. The Vermont teachers union is bringing the president of the National Education Association to "join local union leaders in their critique of a law" which they fear may be effective in controlling spending. They of course never come right out and say it's about the money and how they want the money to go to the people they represent - that being, the teachers. Instead, they focus the on the children, will somebody please think of the children.
They ask, "What do folks want us to stop doing in our public schools?"
Well, for starters, we could stop spending so much money on teachers
because there appears to be a negative rate of return beyond some
critical point which we've clearly crossed. They continue by asking "what changes should be made to staffing levels?" Since when does a a soft cap on spending GROWTH amount to a reduction in teaching staff?
Isn't
it obvious? The NEA isn't interested in better education, it is
interested in better pay. This should come as no surprise, after all,
it's the job of an Employees Union to lobby on behalf of the Employees
for the benefit of the Employees. The NEA does not represent the
children - nor should we expect it to. Likewise, it does not represent
the education system. Plain and simply, it represents teachers.
So,
how low is the NEA willing to stoop to deceive people into thinking
they're really workign for the children and the schools? How's this,
"It's not how much Vermont spends that is problematic, it's how the money is raised." "When you peel it all back, we don't think it's the amount of spending on public education that's really the nub of concern here. We think it's the property tax system."
Right,
this is sort of like if my mechanic told me my car would have been fine
if I had written a check instead of paying cash. So far as the quality
of the products or services purchased are concerned the source of
funding is completely irrelevant. It would appear the real position of
the NEA is they think we should find a new source of funding that
better conceals the connection between the pain of paying and the cause
of the pain. Could it be they want us to pay for our schools with a
credit card?
Comments