http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704196404575375141743605262.html?mod=WSJ_article_related
...
Henninger: Well, I could think of a few reasons why they're doing this. Let's try to be about as cynical as we can. Reforms don't make campaign contributions, OK?
Gigot: Teachers unions do.
Henninger: Sure. In the 20 years before 2009, the four public unions--including the two teachers unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers--gave $126 million to the Democratic Party. Ninety-five percent of their contributions go to the Democratic Party. You could argue that what David Obey is doing is basically recycling campaign contributions, right? Because a percentage of those dues go straight into the political funds of these unions.
Riley: What the unions are arguing here is that without this money, there will be massive teacher layoffs. We have to have them.
Gigot: Right.
Riley: But what we should keep in mind is that school districts and states have been increasing their payrolls for decades, with no regard to student enrollment, and with little to show in terms of student performance in the classroom.
Gigot: How much has spending increased over the last--
Riley: Over the past decade, school spending is up, after inflation, by about 30% or more.
Gigot: Wow. That includes--
Riley: Yet student enrollment is only up, over the past decade, by 1% per year on average.
Gigot: But a lot of this money hasn't gone to classrooms, teachers in classrooms. It's gone to padding the--
Riley: Exactly. The idea that there is no bureaucracy here to cut, no efficiencies to be found, is simply ridiculous.
Henninger: Well--
Gigot: Here's what's interesting here, Dan, politically in this fight. You begin to see a fault line opening up within the Democratic Party between the forces of the status quo--the unions, the people, that's how they get their money, that's how they get elected--and the reform element, which is saying, "You know what? This is a betrayal of our mission as Democrats for equal opportunity. This is a betrayal of young people, especially in the inner cities. We've got to get on the right side of this morally and in terms of actual results."
Henninger: Well, "morally" is exactly the word, Paul. The condition of the inner-city schools is the biggest moral scandal in the United States, bar none. And if elements of the Democratic Party are beginning to realize that, there is some hope. I think that over timewe can make some progress on this subject.
Gigot: You know, it's interesting, Jason--you look at some of the big-city reformers like Joel Klein, the chancellor in New York; Michelle Rhee, the chancellor in Washington, D.C. These are Democrats.
Riley: Yes, yes.
Gigot: And when you talk to them, they say, "You know who our obstacle is?" It's not Republicans. It's not business.
Riley: Right, right, yeah.
Gigot: It's the unions and the Democratic Party status quo. So how deep is in fault line? Is it going to keep getting bigger?
Riley: I don't see it closing, Paul--I mean, unless we get a critical mass of Michelle Rhees and Joel Kleins out there fighting for the kids. Because clearly the party--the politicians, Congress--has decided to side with the adults who run public education instead of the kids.
...
Originally posted by zeeblebotThat must also be why zeeblebot couldn't think of a more appropriate title to make his point 😀
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704196404575375141743605262.html?mod=WSJ_article_related
...
Henninger: Well, I could think of a few reasons why they're doing this. Let's try to be about as cynical as we can. Reforms don't make campaign contributions, OK?
Gigot: Teachers unions do.
Henninger: Sure. In the 20 years before 2009 ...[text shortened]... side with the adults who run public education instead of the kids.
...