I read an editorial by S. Nielsen about a new definition of being ‘Pro-Schools’ in the 20-Mar Oregonian paper: the article indicated that Oregon liberals tend to “lock arms with teachers and lobby for more money, They’d fend off most reforms as divisive or anti-union…” But now there’s a whole new approach.
Now if the truth were to be told, that’s not quite true. Note none of the ‘approaches’ suggested came from the teachers’ unions. Schools in communities across the state are forced to close schools, lay off teachers. Where are the teachers stepping up to solve the problem? They must be picking who gets fired first, being grateful that seniority will protect them another year. Waiting and hoping for more ‘stimulus funds’ – which provides little long term economic benefit. There is no smiley face – the inevitable crash has just been delayed – these are not remedies, purposely ignoring the problem.
Oregon has big problems, and taxing the few to death to support even fewer is not the solution. Our problem is not vilification of the teachers. (BTW: almost all of the vilification of Wisconsin teachers and unions was self-inflicted. Their actions betrayed their character. It did not require the governor or the legislature to say one bad thing about them. It is difficult to find denigration of the teachers coming from the Republicans. It was the Democrats that ran away rather than face the fact their agenda had been rejected by the voters.) Yet the financial problem remains – the teacher and public service unions stubbornly balk at helping by making reasonable concessions.
Look at the examples shown in the editorial: the Black Parent Initiative wants better teachers to be retained to improve the education of their children. I would bet the teachers’ union wants no part of this. The Portland Business Alliance demands ‘major oversight’ if billions of dollars are going to be dredged up for the education system. I would bet the teachers’ union wants no part of this. Oversight and getting rid of mediocre employees involves taking responsibility for the end product. This concept is an anathema to entrenched unions - which hold to the concept of ‘it all pays the same’ whether you work hard or not. And as for the last example – that the legislators have finally seen the light – maybe not so much. The Oregon legislators are still knee deep in figuring out how to get more taxes (e.g., reducing the kicker) than in cutting expenditures. I have yet to see an attempt to decide that not “everything we want (zoo! arts! children’s levy! libraries! streetcars!)” is on the chopping block. Are the legislators truly taking a hard look at what is required, what is constitutional, rather than what makes them feel good?
“None of this is comfortable.” It will not be easy to reduce the size of a bloated, run-away government, one that wants to control minute pieces of our private lives. This control is not free – it costs money (more taxes) and more public employees (more taxes) to implement the soft tyranny. Churches and charities face oversight – remember, most of these organizations do not have the ability to force you to pay, your contribution is voluntary and they eventually must answer for their decisions. The schools need to adopt best practices, accountability, and responsibility, because the schools are not underfunded. They may not be Scrooge McDuck, swimming in cash, but they are fully funded, under-performing, and unwilling to change. This is an unsustainable triumvirate. The schools might deserve more money when they start providing an acceptable product – educated children - and quit shoving the blame on the parents, the buildings, the tax payers. “It’s not my fault” just won’t cut it any more.
