In light of the heightened national conversation over education reform in America, brought to light recently during the presidential debates and the increasing popularity of Teach For America, there is one conclusion which needs to be emphasized:
Teachers unions are anti-child.
Why? Because the specific policies they oppose are ones that directly prevent children from receiving a better education.
The conditions for receiving a good education, like those of any other industry, are dependent upon creating the most opportunities for people to decide for themselves which opportunity best matches their specific needs.
For instance, teachers unions' strict opposition to school vouchers prioritizes helping teachers more than giving students and parents more educational freedom. Funded by public money, vouchers afford the option to parents to send their children to better school systems if the parents feel that the current school system is not meeting the children's educational needs.
In providing this freedom, children have more opportunities to be placed in classes with higher academic standards, stricter enforcement of attendance and higher graduate rates than those in failing public schools.
It is an undeniable fact that the overwhelming majority of parents in low-income school districts support vouchers.
There are also the selfish people who are anti-child.
Because it is also a known fact that an overwhelming majority of teachers in unions - as well as the nationwide teachers unions National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers - ardently oppose vouchers. They feel this will create competition for public schools while draining the schools' public funds.
Let's get myth number one out of the way: more funding for public schools by no means improves academic performance.
The outrageously high per-pupil spending throughout the years of notoriously bad school districts, such as in Washington, D.C., and New York City, has by no means produced a corresponding increase in math, science or reading skills among their students.
The point is not that public schools are able to function without any taxpayer dollars, but that immediate calls for more funding for schools to alleviate this problem are never the ultimate solution.
Unfortunately, teachers unions' selfish visions about how they think public schools should operate undermine any attempts to institute voucher systems. If public schools are faced with the threat of losing high-performing students to other schools, they would do what any rational person would do when faced with similar incentives: improve academic standards in order to retain students.
Improving academic standards does not mean throwing another $12,000 at each student. It does not mean succumbing to teachers unions' demands for increased pay, more time off or job security. And it most certainly does not mean accepting the status quo of underperforming schools.
Which leads to myth number two: public schools will not be strengthened because of the voucher system. In fact, it will create incentives to do the exact opposite. Improving academic standards does mean firing teachers who are not producing results in classrooms.
It does mean strengthening communication channels between teachers and parents to better facilitate a child's educational growth. And it most certainly does mean teaching facts before creative learning, punishing students for classroom behavior and enforcing attendance records.
These principles are often dismissed as typical simplistic pontification of close-minded conservatives. Yet for you students and faculty who did grow up in high-performing school systems - ask yourself why your educational environment was so good.
Was it because of high expectations from your teachers? Was it because of concentration on reading, writing, math and science? Was it because your parents expressed an interest in your educational progress? Was it because a community member, such as a clergyman, sports coach or grandparent, urged you to value your studies?
Unfortunately, these standards and such guidance are all undermined when teachers unions resist any competition within school systems that may benefit parents and children. Because in addition to vouchers, they also are hostile toward any notion of removing job security.
Due to guaranteed employment and tenure, teachers unions directly hurt students by allowing mediocre teachers to continue to teach without holding them accountable for poor classroom results.
Even though liberals and progressives identify themselves as supporters of change, those that blindly support teachers unions are promoting the direct opposite: maintainers of the status quo, resistant to any competition in education and hostile to those who disagree with their point of view.
In my brief time discussing politics with others, there has been perhaps no more intolerant group of people than this type.
Of course, it is easy to gloss over the continuing status quo of unions' resistance to change when we enjoy the privileges of a good education at UMass.
But for inner-city schoolchildren who have the limitless potential to become lawyers, doctors and engineers, they are hurt tragically by the breakdown of such school systems promoted by the selfishness of unions and school administrators.
And when these schoolchildren do not fulfill their potential when they grow up, we will know exactly who is responsible.
Greg Collins is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at gcollins@student.umass.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!