Skip to comments.Why Democrats Love Failing Schools: Because Unions Pay Them To
Posted on 08/27/2013 6:58:56 AM PDT by Kaslin
It is now official. For all their talk about educations failings, and all their feigned interest in bettering the educational system, liberals once again have proven that they hate giving the disadvantaged the same opportunities as the privileged. According to Fox News, the Justice Department is trying to stop a school vouchers program in Louisiana that attempts to place children in independent schools instead of under-performing public schools. So, apparently its all about the kids. . . Unless Teachers Unions are set to lose a dollar.
Louisiana is one of a few states that have implemented a very limited voucher program. Vouchers, on their own merit, should be a championed idea for underprivileged minorities and low income families. With educational dollars meant to better the learning process for students throughout the state, vouchers were given to 570 public school students so that children in impoverished and underperforming schools might reap the same benefited education as some of the most privileged in the state. However, in papers filed in US District Court, the Justice Department said that the vouchers impeded the desegregation process."
Right. Imagine the horror on Martin Luther King Jr.s face when he learned that low-income students were given the opportunity to attend some of the most exclusive and impressive academies in the state. The federal government is arguing that allowing students to attend independent schools under the voucher system could create a racial imbalance in public school systems protected by desegregation orders.
Anyone else find it ironic that the first black Presidents administration is blocking a reform effort that is poised to dis-proportionately benefit minority communities?
According to Fox News: The Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal -- who last year expanded the program that started in 2008 -- said this weekend that the department's action is "shameful" and said President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder "are trying to keep kids trapped in failing public schools against the wishes of their parents."
Tough words. . . And accurate.
The Louisiana Supreme Court already found, earlier this year, that the state could not use the allotted voucher money. As a result the Republican governor had to find the $40 million in other public funds to move the project forward and help the 8,000 students already enrolled in the program.
The objection by the DOJ is just one more case where Democrats and Liberal groups have tried to limit the ability of minorities to move out of failing schools. A hypocritical maneuver for a group that claims the mantel of moral superiority on the issue.
The reason is far more simple, and insidious, than most would think. The Liberal/ Democratic agenda is closely aligned with Teachers unions. And like all unions, they are working to protect due paying positions above all else. And yes: That means the Unions would rather preserve their jobs than work for the betterment of your childs educational experience. After all, over 95 percent of political donations from Teachers Unions went to Democrats; and based off of Democrat run cities like Chicago, New York, LA, and Detroit, thats a horrible investment. On a purely economic analysis, it would seem the Democrat Party is far more dedicated to keeping the Union happy, than honestly improving student education. As a consequence, the lobbying arm of the union is not focused on the interests of students. . . But dont take my word for it:
Teachers Union Bigshot Not About Kids, It's About Power
So. . . Apparently losing a teachers tenure is too high a price to pay for a more effective educational system for our youth. And to think they act like its all for the children.
The most terrifying part of the story: The case is scheduled to be heard by a judge who has already ruled that parts of Jindal's 2012 expansion were unconstitutional. So, we have a Judge who is opposed to using public education monies for the purpose of educating the public (as opposed to feeding Teachers Unions), about to rule on a law that runs contrary to the fundamental concerns of the Obama Administration. If the Judge, or the DOJ, were actually interested in improving education, they would applaud any attempt to move students from failing schools. They, instead, seem far more interested in preserving the failing status quo.
After all, our ruling elite dont send their kids to underperforming schools. So, really, why should they promote opportunities for the rest of Americas youth without first bowing to politically connected Unions?
This could easily change. If you work in a public school, your child must go to a public school in the district you teach.
If the union screams, you know they re full of crap. See how fast the teachers would want vouchers.
If your community has absolutely terrible schools -- and the superintendent goes to the voters and asks for $20M for a new school, what will happen? Easy: voters will throw money at that problem. They need better schools. The kids deserve a quality education. Spending $20M is just a small price to pay.
Failure is rewarded. So the schools fail.
This statement is absolutely ridiculous. This imbalance has existed for as long as I can remember. The reason that it does is because white families have opted to pay for private tuition rather than send their kids to some of these horrendous public schools. If you take most of the white kids out of a particular school system, what do you have left? Denying these poor black children vouchers is never going to advance this imaginary goal of desegregation.
Sort of like birds deciding to fly off and abandon a snake-infested island.
I have to disagree.
They don’t want the regular people of any color to get well-educated. A well-educated populace will want to make their own decisions and will be able to fulfill their own goals without government help.
They want low-information people who are hopeless and helpless as captive voters.
Yes, there were “captive nations” of the 1950s and 1960s, a term since dropped, but the “captive voters” remain and see little wrong with the status quo, unlike the real “captive nations”.