Skip to comments.GOP bill draws teachers' anger
Posted on 03/12/2003 1:19:17 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
click here to read article
Actually, the problem is that the unions are engaging in PAC activities without actually forming a voluntary PAC. Nobody is stifling their free speech, just telling them that they can't use coerced union dues to fund such.
Getting unions to actually FORM PAC's funded by voluntary contributions would be a good thing..
I didn't see where you had weighed in on this one, but it looks like something that would interest you!
This has to be stopped. The only answer I can think of is privatization. It could be back by the government by our tax dollars as it is now, with less money and less left slant
According to this site, they can opt out in Washington state. It's not a very useful site but there is an interesting article describing how the NEA was slapped with an $800,000 fine for misappropriation union dues.
There aren't many people who would disagree with that decision. As a wealthy parent (in 1993, Chavous was already earning nearly $150,000 a year as a lawyer), Chavous had the means to pay for private schooling. Too bad that he and other D.C. Council members who oppose school choice for their less well-to-do neighbors don't preach what they practice.
A survey I recently conducted of D.C. City Council members (3 of the 13 members did not respond) shows that many of them send their children to private schools. Only Carol Schwartz has children who have graduated from D.C. public schools. Five (Chavous, Sandy Allen, Harold Brazil, Vincent Orange and Kathleen Patterson) currently have children who are either in private school or have graduated from private school. Two members (Adrian Fenty and Phil Mendelson) have toddlers; two do not have children (Jim Graham and David Catania); and three did not respond to my calls and e-mails (Linda Cropp, Jack Evans, Sharon Ambrose).
At the same time, these "public" officials oppose school choice for the District, which would provide parents with the means to send their children to those same private schools -- or wherever they want to see their kids educated. Either way, the children would not be stuck in D.C.-designated educational ghettoes.
Over the next few months, we can expect the members of the City Council to denounce efforts to improve educational choices between charter and public schools. D.C. Council member Fenty, who attended the public schools until he enrolled in a Catholic school to start the 9th grade, is expected as early as tomorrow to introduce a resolution condemning vouchers.
It isn't a new phenomenon for D.C.'s political and educational leaders to fiercely defend the public school system while sending their own kids to private schools. According to a 1977 U.S. News & World Report article, "Representative Walter Fauntroy, a black Democrat who is the District of Columbia's non-voting delegate in Congress, has a child in private school. So does Sterling Tucker, black chairman of the D.C. city council."
District officials who avoid the local public schools have counterparts in Congress. For instance, Heritage Foundation analyst Jennifer Garrett found in 2001 that 47 percent of House members and 51 percent of senators with school-age children sent them to private schools in 2001. Thirty-five percent of Congressional Black Caucus members and 33 percent of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus members sent their children to private school in 2001. Most of their members remain opposed to school choice plans outside of the public school system.
In a commentary published last summer, Chavous wrote: "After overseeing reform efforts in the D.C. Public Schools, I am convinced that our traditional school system is capable of reform -- but incapable of reforming itself. Effective reform has to be radical in nature." Chavous personally engaged in school choice a decade ago. It is time for lower-income parents to have options beyond charters and traditional public schools.
Casey Lartigue is an education policy analyst with the Cato Institute.
Accidental Humor or is she really a communist?
No, Ms. Dinnen. You can campaign and speak out in political campaigns all you want to with your own money.
This bill only prohibits your use of other people's money to advance your political views.
As a physician, I get a yearly bill from my State Medical Society that is mandatory for membership and pays for Society activities outside of politics. A separate bill is sent for voluntary contributions to the Society Political Action Committtee and only those funds may be used for political campaigning.
Ms. Dinnen, like most Democrats, finds it difficult to tell the difference between "your money" and "her money".
Yes. And they won't be happy until it is ALL their money.
I am a teacher and I can categorically say that statement is pure bull$hit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.