I’m going to have one more go at this and then I’ll be done and moving on. Between this and the other thread I think we have mined this vein for all the ore.

As I said before, my perspective on all of this boils down to who is in control of my child’s education. Is it me as a parent? Or is it the ever-growing, increasingly intrusive federal government under the almost unstoppable Obama administration and the Democratic Party? Look at what has happened to individual liberty in this country since Obama took office. It is naive to think that within the current virtual Marxist environment that you as a parent will end up with more control and more options for your child’s education. I have real concern that quite the opposite will happen. I am trying to put the charter school issue in a broader context. It really doesn’t make much sense to talk about charter schools in a vacuum. If you want to believe I “changed the point of the discussion” because I am wrong, then fine – I’m wrong. Only time will truly tell. In the mean time I remain skeptical of what may happen.

Make no mistake about it – I hope I am wrong. I want to be wrong. But I don’t think I am. And I think your position is naive.

You said:

You think that because the NEA does something, then Obama will do the same. Even though Obama continues to say that he will do differently.

I say:
You think that Obama will actually stand in opposition to the NEA, and your proof is his rhetoric and that of his Secretary of Education? Hardly convincing proof, given Obama’s well-documented penchant for speaking persuasively and say substantively nothing.

You said:

There is no question that the teachers unions support Obama. And I have already explained what this means – they pick the best candidate, not the perfect candidate. And Obama has done and will continue to do many things that piss of(f) Labor. And that includes pushing for charter schools and merit pay for teachers.

I say:
I disagree with your characterization and explanation, that is unless we can first agree on a define of the word, “best”. Labor unions, PACs, large corporations, etc, don’t care about who is best, with respect to platform and policy. These groups seek to influence politicians in order to further their own agenda. And influence is bought and paid for with campaign contributions. The NEA and AFT have contributed heavily to Obama and other Democrats precisely because they know it has bought political influence. These politicians are not going to turn on those who contribute or their sources of funding will dry up, the contributions going to some other candidate more willing to promote the contributor’s agenda. Time will tell how this will play out but I still don’t think Obama will substantively DO anything to upset teacher unions though he may SAY some things that do.

We can spar all day long about the idea of whether Obama does or does not support charter schools – that’s not the point.

Except it was the point originally, until you realized that it you were wrong about Obama’s position on charter schools, so you have no changed the point of the discussion.

given what is being SAID by Duncan vs what has been DONE by the NEA.

This is really what it comes down to.

You think that because the NEA does something, then Obama will do the same. Even though Obama continues to say that he will do differently.

There is no question that the teachers unions support Obama. And I have already explained what this means – they pick the best candidate, not the perfect candidate. And Obama has done and will continue to do many things that piss of Labor. And that includes pushing for charter schools and merit pay for teachers.

Interesting article. It seems to support your ideas that you have about Duncan and local control, but it also directly refutes your idea that Obama (and in turn Duncan) are in the pockets of the unions. It also explicitly says that Duncan’s push towards privatization and charter schools are likely to be key proponents of his agenda in DC.

The subject of this blog is parental choice in education. The article I quoted explains how Duncan has moved to eliminate local parental control in parts of Chicago Public schools. My ideas have nothing to do with it. The article also gives a pretty good window into what the terms “privatization” and “charter schools” may look like in the future of an Obama administration. We can spar all day long about the idea of whether Obama does or does not support charter schools – that’s not the point. If local public schools are shut down by the government, and if (often poorer) families are left with moving their child to another school farther away, this does NOTHING to promote choice for parents. In fact it often gives them less choice and less input into the education their children are getting.

I find it pretty interesting that you continue to write off any thing that I post related to the idea that Obama is not in the back pocket of unions.

I have done nothing of the sort. I have read every word you have written as well as every word of every article you cite as source. (can you make the same claim?) In the previous thread I responded in detail to your article, using it to point out what I felt were important points to consider in our discussion. In this post I have tried to refocus the discussion into what I think really matters on the subject – parental choice and control over the education of their children. I have made what I feel to be a fairly thought-provoking, if not compelling case that teacher unions are no friend of parents in the matter of educational choice. Obama and other Democrats have taken millions in campaign contributions from teacher unions, so forgive me if I am skeptical of Obama’s willingness to bite the hand that feeds him.

You claim that a speech is not enough. You complain that Obama is talking about it rather than doing it. As if Obama would willingly go to the teachers unions and tell them what they don’t want to hear just for the sake of doing it.

I said nothing of the sort. I said speech is only speech. Shall we begin to go through the litany of broken Obama campaign promises? In the world of politics, speech means less than nothing sometimes. But action is something tangible to which one can point. The actions of a politician are rarely random. They speak to understanding what future actions on the part of that politician will likely be. Again I remind you this blog is on the topic of parent choice in education. Laying aside what may or may not have been said by members of the Obama administration, let me ask you – what ACTIONS has this administration taken that point to support of parents choice in their child’s education?

I have continually posted stories about Obama supporting charter schools, which you had said he opposed. I have posed stories about Obama supporting merit pay, which, according to you, is impossible because Obama would never support anything that the teachers unions didn’t support. Even the story that you linked to backs my position up.

The last thing I said on the subject of charter schools: it is, at best, a mixed message that is being sent, given what is being SAID by Duncan vs what has been DONE by the NEA.

It is funny, because I have been told that I must support any assertion that I say, but you continue to claim that Obama is opposed to things in direct contrast to his words. You continue to say that Obama will only do things that the unions support, even though he is directly telling the unions something very different.

As I have already stated words to a politician are a means to an end, they are not a promise, an oath, a pact, or a contract. ALL politicians use words to get what they want – and there is a daily mountain of evidence to show that politicians don’t worry about truth when speaking. So from the Department of Redundancy Department let me repeat myself – “words” and “telling” do not carry the same weight as “doing”.

How much evidence do you need before you admit that may be wrong about Obama/Duncan’s education agenda?

Tell you what… Why don’t you ask those parents of the canceled voucher system in Washington D.C. this question?

The legislature makes the laws that govern how union contracts work. They can change them if they want to, and can get a majority. And district contracts with unions DO expire now and then, which is what I meant by “budget/contract cycle”, allowing both sides to renegotiate. The legislature could mandate that any such new contract include strong merit pay provisions… but it won’t, of course, because the teacher’s unions are too strong in most places.

Vouchers WOULD cover the cost of private education if they were funded properly. The districts in many areas get PLENTY of money per pupil to fund most private schools, which are far from elitist institutions, by and large, and generally serve a very humble clientele, in my personal experience.

Public education is just about the worst financial deal the tax payers get, next to publicly funded healthcare like medicare and medicaid, maybe.

The point of vouchers is that they allow students and parents to choose.

The notion that NOT having vouchers is going to stop “the cycle of racial and economic inequality” is disproved by the current facts on the ground. Vouchers would help, which is why the very poorest, and “least equal”, want them the most.

Imagine if someone suggested that the NRA should have final approval on whether or not a particular gun control law would be passed.

Don’t they already? This is actually a really interesting example, considering that few (Republican and Democrat alike) in Washington are willing to do anything about guns that the NRA doesn’t approve.

As far as merit pay goes, no legislature is REQUIRED by law to get union approval before implementing it. All they have to do is rewrite contracts for the next budget/contract cycle.

Contract bargaining doesn’t work like that. You are right that there is no law that requires union approval for merit pay, but there are laws that govern how labor contracts work. And “management” (i.e. school adminstrators) cannot make unilateral changes to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), or anything that is governed by the cba, without union approval. And they cannot just simply “rewrite contracts.” Any contract has to be agreed to by both sides.

The real solution is voucher programs

Vouchers are only real solutions if they truly cover the cost of private education. And I have seen very few (not saying that they don’t exist) such programs. So instead of creating parental choices, what they really do is just subsidize private education for those who already can (or almost can) afford to go to such schools, which in turn just perpetuates the cycle of racial and economic inequality by moving rich (mostly white students) out of the public school system and into the expensive private school system.

Am saying that a law designed to regulate and manage a group that needs managing is going to be watered down to uselessness if the group to be regulated has veto power on it.

Imagine if someone suggested that the NRA should have final approval on whether or not a particular gun control law would be passed. You get the idea. Of course, the NRA IS a much more deserving group of such consideration than the teacher’s unions… so I’ll tell you what. I hereby agree that from now on, teachers unions get final say so on any law affecting education, teacher pay, etc., if you agree that no law regulating or limiting guns will be passed without full NRA approval.

And the reason Obama will have Duncan say things to the unions, in public speeches, that make him sound tough on the unions is obvious, isn’t it? He gets the political benefit of pretended moderation, while in fact doing nothing that actually changes the status quo significantly. A sort of minor Sista Soldja moment (not sure of the spelling, too lazy to look it up).

As far as merit pay goes, no legislature is REQUIRED by law to get union approval before implementing it. All they have to do is rewrite contracts for the next budget/contract cycle.

However, while merit pay might help a little, it’s a bandaid. There isn’t any way to implement it without yet another level of bureacracy (who watchers the evaluators who decide who gets the merit pay?). The real solution is voucher programs, with full portability, which will create an “invisible hand” version of merit pay by people voting with their feet.

To the extent that Obama does like merit pay, it’s still a “big government” solution that gives even more power to the government, more ability to make payoffs to supporters, etc.

Obama will not do anything that angers the unions sufficiently that they will stop supporting him.

FWIW, it would take a lot. The unions know that even if Obama angers them, he will still be substantially better than the alternative. That is the life of unions (or anyone, for that matter) supporting politicians – one must choose who is the best. Not who is perfect.

but only if the teachers agreed on the criteria by which they would be judged… e.g., let the unions decide how merit pay will be assigned.

Well, first of all, this has to be true whether you like it or not. You cannot implement a merit pay system in a unionized school without the union agreeing to it.

That’s pretty much like saying that you’re for stiff sentences for violent crime, but only in the offenders agree on the criteria by which they would be judged….

Seriously? Violent criminal activity is not compared to the work that teachers do? They are not at all comparable.

But please tell me this – why would Obama (or have Duncan) go in front of the teachers unions and tell them he supports and plans on implementing (though I am unclear how he will be doing this from the federal level) something that the Unions, up to this point, have been adamantly opposed to. What does Obama gain by pissing them off?

Obama will not do anything that angers the unions sufficiently that they will stop supporting him. Even if it can be shown to be something that improves education for poor and at-risk students.

It really doesn’t matter so much what he says in speeches. The policies and legislation he supports that have actual impact “on the ground” are the ones that matter.

For example, on the topic of “merit pay,” at the Saddleback Forum, Obama said he was for it, but only if the teachers agreed on the criteria by which they would be judged… e.g., let the unions decide how merit pay will be assigned.

That’s pretty much like saying that you’re for stiff sentences for violent crime, but only in the offenders agree on the criteria by which they would be judged….

In other words, everything I ever hear Obama say has qualifications in it that nullify the presumed thrust of his statement. That allows him to claim to support every side of every issue, of course, depending on the audience to whom he speaks. We had another president like that, didn’t we? First name was BILL.

I find it pretty interesting that you continue to write off any thing that I post related to the idea that Obama is not in the back pocket of unions.

You claim that a speech is not enough. You complain that Obama is talking about it rather than doing it. As if Obama would willingly go to the teachers unions and tell them what they don’t want to hear just for the sake of doing it.

I have continually posted stories about Obama supporting charter schools, which you had said he opposed. I have posed stories about Obama supporting merit pay, which, according to you, is impossible because Obama would never support anything that the teachers unions didn’t support. Even the story that you linked to backs my position up.

It is funny, because I have been told that I must support any assertion that I say, but you continue to claim that Obama is opposed to things in direct contrast to his words. You continue to say that Obama will only do things that the unions support, even though he is directly telling the unions something very different.

How much evidence do you need before you admit that may be wrong about Obama/Duncan’s education agenda?