Voucher Opponents Losing PR Battle
This is just the latest in a long campaign of lies and double-dealing where the common theme has been the desire of voucher opponents to stay out of the spotlight. At first the Obama administration tried to do the bidding of the unions and kill the program, but it feared public scrutiny of its actions. So it suppressed vital information (even withholding it from Congress) and misled the public about what it was doing.
Fortunately, too many people noticed what was going on, and the administration — apparently calculating that opposing vouchers was a political loser for the president — retreated to a compromise position: those already in the program can stay, but no new kids can enter the program. The administration actually defended this by saying that vouchers are OK for those who already have them, but they’re deadly poison if you give them to anyone else. (I paraphrase.) As Jim Geraghty put it, the administration is saying in effect, “We know our stance is indefensible; please make this issue go away.”
Why all the lies and backstabbing and subterfuge? Why are both the administration and the union-controlled senators afraid of a straight fight over vouchers?
Because the unions have lost the fight for public opinion, both at large and within the Democratic Party. And they know they’ve lost it. And they’ve apparently decided that they’re OK with that. So they’re just not even bothering to pretend to care about kids anymore.
Let’s not indulge in naïve optimism. Having lost the public relations battle may in some ways makes the teachers’ unions more dangerous, not less. America’s last education labor reporter, Mike Antonucci, offers a sobering observation:
The public perception battle is over, and the teachers’ unions have lost. But will it have any effect on Congress and state legislatures? The NRA, tobacco companies, PETA, the ACLU and Big Oil all have negative public images they can’t shed, yet they are still effective in getting their way. What if NEA and AFT stop caring what other people think?
On the other hand, there is a key difference between the teachers’ unions and the other groups Antonucci mentions here, and that gives us considerable grounds for hope. All of those groups have retained power in spite of their bad public images either because (for the NRA, tobacco, and oil) what they really represent is the desires of consumers who want their products and mostly just want to be left alone and aren’t trying to mess around with other people’s lives; or else because (for PETA and the ACLU) they care very intensely about a narrow set of issues that most Americans just don’t care much about.
The teachers’ unions, by contrast, are fattening themselves by destroying the lives of America’s children. That’s just not in the same ballpark.
What’s more, the unions are a creation of government policy. Even people who hate certain consumer products or nutty radicalisms know that these things exist because some people really want them, not because government made them in order to satisfy lobby groups. Government didn’t create animal rights activism in order to satisfy the demands of PETA. Animal rights activism is just there, an unpleasant fact of life that we can’t get rid of however much we’d like to — a hemorrhoid on the body politic.
But the only reason we have dysfunctional education policies like government school monopolism or teacher pay structures that actively reward mediocrity or tenure that makes it impossible to fire bad teachers –- even if they’re so toxic they can’t be allowed near children –- is because the unions demand them. These policies are only there to feed the gravy train. They have no autonomous rationale for existing, comparable to what, for example, the NRA can appeal to. When government recognizes gun rights, that benefits the NRA, but it also benefits the millions of Americans who really do want to own guns.
On whose behalf can the unions make any analogous claim, once they give up the pretense that their preferred policies are good for education?
The trouble is that it may not matter if people aren’t happy with what goes on. Unions like the NEA have money coming out their eyeballs. Imagine if they manage to unionize private schools (a serious possibility if the EFCA passes). Then, public or private school, the job of teaching will be poorly done, and it’ll be impossible to fire bad teachers, regardless of their infractions. In the meanwhile, they pour massive amounts of money into the coffers of the same officials they negotiate their union contracts with, so that they of course get pretty much everything they want whenever a contract is signed. One of your links leads to an article recounting that Los Angeles Unified has a bunch of teachers collecting paychecks for doing nothing, because their union contract prohibits them being put to work doing office duty while the school district is “evaluating” them, after allegations of wrongdoing. So we pay their salaries so that they can sit in a room and do a crossword puzzle.
As Barack Obama proved recently, if you have enough money in a political race, everything else is irrelevant. The unions have enough money. I’d like to be optimistic, but I’m not.
Unions have no place in government run institutions, as the have in effect the power to vote the board of directors they deem most beneficial. This is not the case with a corporation where unions may (its debatable) have a role. Unions should immediately be banned from government jobs, they are poison.
I saw the voucher program shot down in California as well under the assault of the teachers union. And ultimately decided to abandon that state because of mismanagement such as this.
“Stripped of the very last of their myths, what did the unions do? They resorted to a combination of outright lies and backroom subterfuge. In other words, they’ve stopped even pretending to have an argument on their side.”
This is what they (the leftists) do in election after election: refuse to argue or defend ideas and, instead, just destroy their opponents.
“If you can’t ‘persuade’ them, destroy them” is their political mantra and always has been.
It would be good for the American public to keep this in mind as we resist what they are doing to our nation.
The scorched earth policy is implemented flawlessly in political matters by these people.
People through bitter experience have begun
to realize that what is good for the teachers
isn’t good for America. Problem is that you
are facing an adversary that is connected and
has a lot of time, money and motivation.
Also you cannot ignore the importance of the
public system as a tool of leftist influence
to override the defective thinking of parents
and the bad influence of the church in order
to build a better society.
Political double whammy here folks. I’m not
optimistic.
I’m not optimistic either. Private Universities and Colleges indoctrinate their students with liberal ideas and Marxist drivel. They aren’t unionized (formally), yet they subscribe to all the policies and practices of the lefty unions that do exist. How will private schools combat the liberal training teachers get from these bastions of higher learning? And once hired, we are mired.
Seismic shifts have indeed taken place in what was once a solid wall of people with hands over their ears shouting “the schools are fine!”
In a jaw-dropping rift in the wall, the Los Angeles Times-willfully deaf and blind to union abuses for decades–sharply criticized their resistance to Charter schools and rigid union rules that shield incompetent teachers and actual child abusers. vouchers may be the castor oil the Times is willing to endorse next. The Times has finally become fed up with the same tired excuses for elevating teachers over kids.
Obama’s administration has threatened to withhold federal money from states that fail to consider how well students are doing with partiular teachers–somehting the LAUSD has resisted for decades more. In California there is a firewall between student evaluations of teachers and teacher tenure and compensation.
The LAUSD is currently spending millions on teachers kept at home because the District won’t allow them in the classroom but they cannot be fired.
The unions are still fighting meaningful reforms tooth and nail, and another generation of kids are shoveled out the doors by teachers that wouldn’t last a minute if their performance was fairly judged. Vouchers are begining to look absolutely reasonable to people who wouldn’t allow them on the asme planet five years ago.
Its terrific that even the unions’ stalwart defenders are seeing the light.
Except for the huge and politically powerful government labor union, which educates our kids, we would have had vouchers 25 years ago. Don’t think, with the Democrats in bed with labor unions, that we will ever have a vouchers system in our lifetimes. They will fight this tooth and nail, because the government schools are producing Democrat voters by the millions every year.
DavidN wrote:
The trouble is that it may not matter if people aren’t happy with what goes on. Unions like the NEA have money coming out their eyeballs. Imagine if they manage to unionize private schools (a serious possibility if the EFCA passes). Then, public or private school, the job of teaching will be poorly done, and it’ll be impossible to fire bad teachers, regardless of their infractions. In the meanwhile, they pour massive amounts of money into the coffers of the same officials they negotiate their union contracts with, so that they of course get pretty much everything they want whenever a contract is signed.
Of course, this can only occur if the NEA has a steady cash flow, i.e., membership dues. If the dues start drying up, so does the NEA’s political influence.
So, the NEA is not happy as Christian teachers have begun leaving for conservative unions liek the CEAI that don’t promote dangerous Leftist agendas:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=616046
These teachers understand that you must hit Leftists where it REALLY hurts, the pocketbook.
Unions are unions, no matter what political stripe they attach themselves to. Members of all unions have one thing in common, they hire other people to represent them when it comes time to ask the boss for a raise. They have no confidence in their own ability to negotiate a deal based on what they have produced for their organization. It fits perfectly in an environment where the boss doesn’t worry about the outcome of the negotiation, for example, our government schools.
It’s about money and power. These union bosses are protecting the best job they could possibly get… like so many Congressmen and Senators do.
why indeed.
the last thing the liberals/socialists want is educated people.
they worked hard to destroy the education system in public schools and are not going to allow anyone to try to correct the situation.
The main reason most teachers are in the unions is for protection against (phony) lawsuits from students and their parents. Esp those who teach in ‘flyover’ country. If there was a program which still gave the same protection those unions would truly start to sweat.
Rachel,
I just can’t figure out where you found that frivolous lawsuits are more prevalent in ‘flyover’ country. But I do know that it is the taxpayers, who pay all of the administrative costs for the schools, who ultimately end up footing the bill for defending against these frivolous lawsuits. Whomever has the deep pockets, gets served with the lawsuit. So usually it is the school system, not the teacher, who gets sued. At least I agree with you that frivolous lawsuits create major administrative problems for our school systems, as do the labor unions and the governments.