Sunday, May 2, 2010

Yes, What about the children?

The following piece appeared in the Chico Enterprise-Record. Not until teachers put the children's interests ahead of their own will we see improvement in public school performance. For now we will see good little socialist graduating from Taxpayer Funded Socialist Indoctrination Centers. The success of graduating said socialists over the last 40 years assured the election of Obama in 2008.

Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Letter: What about the kids?

Chico Enterprise-Record
Posted: 05/02/2010 12:09:06 AM PDT

Excepting our immortal soul, nothing is more important than our children. We have high expectations and dream of their future successes.
Teachers' unions reduce our chances and, most important, the children's chances of reaching some level of life success. The main stumbling block for education today may be union interests standing between our beloved teachers and the kids.

CTA, the main culprit in California, spends over $20 million annually just on lobbying. CTA more or less owns the Legislature through its campaign contributions. In turn, the Legislature has rewarded the unions.

Unions made more sense back in the early 20th century when our industrial economy treated the work force shabbily. The pendulum has swung wildly the other way, with the teacher work force showing up only about 180 days per year. Parents who notice the children's knowledge drop over a long summer might wonder why we don't have year-round schools.

We know education is important to our entire society, yet we leave so much of the decision making to the unions, whose interests are so different from parental interests, taxpayer interest and America's interests.

Is it realistic to expect our beloved teachers to rise, toss out the cosseted unions through decertification and focus on the kids? Probably not. But what would happen if the public encouraged such a move? Could the teachers trust the public to treat them fairly without the presence of their union reps? What about the kids? Would they be better off or worse off without unions?
—Curtiss Landers, Paradise

No comments: