2008 Woodie Awards
Selfish and Anti-Child
Greg Collins, Collegian Columnist
Issue date: 12/2/08 Section: Editorial / Opinion
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.
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.
Viewing Comments 1 - 8 of 12
Ed Cutting
posted 12/02/08 @ 5:19 AM EST
Let me say what Greg didn't -- vouchers (and charter schools) will most benefit urban minority children.
Those with money already have the option of private schools. (Continued…)
Christopher C.
posted 12/02/08 @ 5:55 AM EST
Why Charter Schools are good:
They provide an alternative and "individually-paced" education for many students who may not perform as well in standard public school. (Continued…)
Christopher C.
posted 12/02/08 @ 10:22 AM EST
Actually, my schools didn't "suck" pre-charter school. On the 2007 MCAS my school was ranked 16th in the state for the math exam and 49th for English (scores of 91 and 90 respectively). (Continued…)
i'd rather a dollar than change.
posted 12/02/08 @ 6:16 PM EST
i really enjoyed reading this article. as an aspiring teacher, I'm so often faced with adversity in my Education classes, especially when suggesting that funding is not the resolution to education reform. (Continued…)
Joe-Don
posted 12/03/08 @ 9:35 AM EST
"Teachers unions are anti-child. Why? Because the specific policies they oppose are ones that directly prevent children from receiving a better education. (Continued…)
Andrew F
posted 12/03/08 @ 12:28 PM EST
Teachers, whether public, private, or parochial, cannot control what happens in the kid's home.
Let's say you're a public school student in Boston. (Continued…)
Jane
posted 12/03/08 @ 2:46 PM EST
The kind of school your child will attend is very important. That's why when I was moving into a new flat I tried to collect all the possible information about the schools nearby. (Continued…)
Ed Cutting
posted 12/04/08 @ 10:45 AM EST
A classic example of the NEA versus students:
The Massachusetts Society of Professors - the UM Faculty Union, is part of the NEA. Max Page is quite clear: the union is about "wages and working conditions" of the faculty (and librarians). (Continued…)
Post a Comment