A July 2010 Gallup Poll found that only 34 percent of Americans have trust in the nation’s public school system; that’s down four points from 2009. 

     Most Americans believe that the public schools are failing the nation’s children.  But as a new column from Anthony B. Bradley makes clear, it is black male students who are being hurt the most by inferior public schools. 

     And sadly, many leaders in the black community are still siding with the national teachers unions and fighting efforts to help minority kids escape failing inner-city schools.

     Bradley writes “that only 47 percent of black males graduate from high school on time, compared to 78 percent of white male students.”  In urban school districts throughout the nation, the graduation rates for black males get even worse.  In New York and Philadelphia, for example, only 28 percent of black male students graduate high school. 

     But the situation isn’t hopeless.  Certain charter schools throughout the country have helped black male students to not only graduate, but to excel. 

     “This summer, Chicago’s Urban Prep Charter Academy, with a 100 percent graduation rate, graduated a class of 107 black male students, all of whom are attending college in the fall,” Bradley writes.  Another all-male charter school in New York “boasts a graduation rate of 82 percent.”  Charter school success stories such as these ought to be celebrated by all Americans—but they’re not.   

    Opponents of charter schools include the usual suspects: the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association. Oh, their websites say they support charter schools, but read further and it becomes clear they support charter schools only if they can organize their staffs and control them. 

     But here’s the bigger story:  Civil rights groups such as the NAACP, the National Urban League, and the Rainbow PUSH Coalition also oppose the efforts of charter schools.  According to Bradley, “Even though there is overwhelming evidence supporting the success of charter schools for children from low-income households, the civil-rights groups resist the opportunity for parents to exercise freedom to choose schools.”     

     How can this possibly be? It’s just old-fashioned politics.

     Civil rights leaders, like most politicians associated with the Democratic Party,  know that if they want to get ahead in the party, they need to play nice with the NEA, which has a huge influence on the party and its policies. So-called leaders in the black community are more concerned about their own political power than they are about the future of young black students. 

     On its website, National Urban League officials write that they “wholeheartedly” support charter schools.  Yet a few sentences later, they warn, “While some charter schools can and do work for some students, they are not a universal solution for systemic change for all students, especially those with the highest needs, and should not be considered as the sole useful reform.”

    Let’s review, once again,  graduation rates for black males in major urban school districts: 34 percent in Atlanta, 27 percent in Detroit, 38 percent in St. Louis, 35 percent in Baltimore, 28 percent in both Philadelphia and New York.  

     Those numbers reveal an educational catastrophe for black male students, and the National Urban League responds by preaching a “wait and see” approach to charter schools.  The only explanation for this is the old saying used for worthless politicians:  “They came to do good, and stayed to do well.”  

    It’s an outrage that there are powerful adults who are willing to sacrifice the well-being of children for their own selfish political interests.

     Bradley writes, “As long as teachers unions have influence in the black community and in institutions pledged to black empowerment, and black parents are not financially empowered to opt out of failing public schools, black males are doomed.” 

    Still, there is one reason for optimism:  more and more Americans are coming to the realization that parents everywhere should be allowed to choose where their children attend school.  But Americans need to understand that it’s more than just a good idea. It’s the most important civil rights issue of our time.

Here’s a story problem to get kids ready for the new school year:

     If Congress borrows $10 billion to bail out the public schools, and if toilet paper costs fifty cents a roll, how many rolls of toilet paper will each of the nation’s 132,000 K-12 public schools receive? 

     The answer:  Zero. Zip. Zilch.

     The average American can be forgiven for thinking that the $10 billion “edujobs” bill signed into law last week by President Obama would directly benefit the nation’s school children.  That’s certainly how the National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel spun it:  “As a result of this vote, we expect to see less crowded classrooms, reinstated bus routes and restored education programs and services,” Van Roekel said.

     What a windfall for the kids, right?  But how to make sense of this headline in The New York Times:  “Back to School? Bring Your Own Toilet Paper.”  Just five days after the $10 billion bailout became law, the Times reports that schools all across the country are sending out shopping lists to parents and students, requiring them to help stock the janitorial closets that have been stripped bare by shrinking school budgets.  Wasn’t that money supposed to prevent this kind of thing?     

     It’s a fact that school districts all across the country have smaller budgets to work with, due to the aftermath of “The Great Recession.”  It’s also a fact that unlike most American workers who have had to take less pay and fewer benefits to keep their jobs, many teacher unions all across the country have refused to make any concessions (i.e. accepting a freeze in pay or contributing to their health insurance costs).   Left with no other options to balance their budgets, school districts were forced to cut teaching jobs.  This resulted in a “crisis” and led to Congress’ $10 billion bailout.

     With Congress pumping all this new money into the education system, the teacher unions can forego any unpleasant concessions and can protect the status quo.  Meanwhile, parents and students are forced to stretch their back-to-school budgets to help stock the restrooms with toilet paper and Kleenex. 

     Despite all the spin, it is clear that the “edujobs” bill was simply a bailout for the intractable teacher unions dressed up as being “for the children.”  Once again, the nation’s school kids are asked to do with less so the teacher unions can do with more.  

     Welcome back to school.

     We’ve got a news flash for the leaders of the Milwaukee Teachers Education Association: 

     Our nation is in the midst of a severe economic recession, which has cost local government units, including public school districts, a great deal of tax revenue. 

     In order to maintain operations, and adequately serve students, schools are being forced to cut back on expenses. That’s tough to do when at least 80 percent of their budgets are tied up in labor costs. 

     So how does the Milwaukee teachers union respond to this financial challenge? First by refusing to accept less expensive health insurance, which would have saved hundreds of jobs for younger teachers and maintained smaller classrooms. Now union leaders are demanding that their insurance cover Viagra prescriptions for male teachers. 

     They must be living on the moon. 

     For years, Wisconsin K-12 teachers have lived a pretty nice middle-class life, with salaries and benefits that compare very well with compensation for teachers in other states. The vast majority of teachers in the state also have the luxury of being covered by “Cadillac” health insurance through the union-owned WEA Trust, even though it costs local districts an arm and a leg. 

     Teachers unions must accept the fact that public schools are struggling financially, and this is definitely not the time for them to spend even more money on employee health coverage. That’s particulary true for a prescription that has nothing to do with the health or well-being of the patient. 

     The school district says Viagra coverage would cost about $786,000 a year. How can the union ask for this when student programs and activities are being cut? Are union leaders capable of thinking about anything but their own selfish desires? 

     They give the distinct impression that the schools can rot and the students can miss out on crucial opportunities, but they will be happy as long as they get their automatic, annual step raises, exorbitant number of paid sick and personal days, and free health coverage. 

     “The rest of America is sacrificing,” said Kyle Olson, vice president of EAG. “Millions of private sector workers have lost their jobs or accepted concessions to keep them. Thousands of school administrators, bus drivers, cooks, secretaries and custodians all over the nation have accepted concessions to remain employed. 

     “But Milwaukee union leaders  think teachers should be held harmless when it comes to concessions, and they would very much like us to pay for their recreational sex drugs, as well. If this pathetic situation doesn’t tell us something about the twisted priorities of teachers unions, nothing will.”

     The teacher unions are in a panic.  School districts all across the nation are facing huge budget deficits, leading to teacher layoffs, increased class sizes, and shorter school year calendars. 

     But more and more Americans are realizing that a few reasonable contract concessions from the local teachers unions would allow schools to avoid such drastic measures.  After all, the nation is still reeling from the “Great Recession.”  Is it so unreasonable to ask teachers to accept a temporary wage freeze and maybe kick in a little for their health insurance?  Isn’t that what American workers are doing to keep their jobs?  Taxpayers all across the country are asking those tough questions, and it’s causing union leaders some sleepless nights. 

     But don’t expect the unions to give up.  No way. The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are on the verge of passing a $10 billion dollar bailout for the teachers unions. Politically-savvy readers may be wondering why Congress would pass another bailout when previous bailouts of the car companies and Wall Street have proven so unpopular. 

     The answer isn’t very complicated.  What’s really going on here is a quid pro quo:  Congressional Democrats (with the help of a few Republicans) will provide states with tax dollars to paper over the school budget deficits.  In return, the teacher unions will “bail out” the Democratic Party by providing lots of money to help re-elect Democrats, like they do every election cycle.  It’s a win-win, at least for the unions and the Democrats.  The teacher unions won’t have to make difficult concessions regarding wages and health insurance, and congressional Democrats will have the nation’s largest political contributor, the National Education Association, squarely in their corner during the election season.

     Of course there will be a lot of blather from the unions that this bailout is really about doing right by the nation’s school children.  But if that were the case, why have they allowed all the layoffs and the over-crowding classrooms in the first place?  A few concessions at the local level already would have saved the jobs of many young, non-tenured teachers.

     If the teacher unions want to self-destruct, that’s their business.  But when their greed threatens the education of the nation’s children and requires a bailout from the American taxpayer, they’ve gone too far.  To borrow a line from the 1986 film Hoosiers:

      “Look, mister, there’s… two kinds of dumb. The guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and the guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don’t matter, the second one you’re kinda  forced to deal with.”

There is a weird dichotomy in American education: many teachers across the country impress upon their students that they must succeed for our nation to remain competitive in a global economy.

But at the same time, teachers unions fear, and downright besmirch, competition.

Competition is what has made America the greatest country in the world.  Capitalist inventors have created new products to make money, not to mention improve society.  Investors have put their money behind products that have great potential.  It’s clear competition improves products and lowers cost.

So why do teachers unions fear competition?

Like the robber barons of the 20^th Century, unions oppose choice because it will likely impact its monopoly on the market.  About 85% of American kids go to traditional public schools – most of which are unionized.

Unions oppose competition among teachers and instead want the same rate of pay for employees, based on years of service, regardless of success or effectiveness.  So the best teacher in the building is paid exactly the same as the worst.  How does that foster improvement?

And lately, the unions have been critical of President Obama’s “Race to the Top” education reform initiative.  Consider American Federation of Teachers’ president Randi Weingarten’s latest press release:

While we encouraged our local and state affiliates to be involved in every aspect of Race to the Top, we have always been troubled that this competition, by its very construct, leaves out millions of students across the country. Rather than picking winners and losers, our education policies should represent a comprehensive approach focused on preparing every student to succeed in college, work and life.

Let’s all hold hands, sing Labor’s favorite song, “Solidarity Forever,” and enjoy the ride on the sinking S.S. Public Education.

Previous AFT leaders have admitted there is a problem, but nobody from that union, or the National Education Association, have ever seemed willing to do anything meaningful about it.  In 1989, AFT president Albert Shanker told this to the Wall Street Journal:

“It’s time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody’s role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It’s no surprise that our school system doesn’t improve: It more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy.”

So the American public education system is closer to communism than capitalism, thanks to the teachers unions and union-enabling politicians.

It’s no wonder the system is failing in its obligation to educate American kids and prepare them to be future world leaders.  Until the adults in the system realize why they’re there – to serve children – we should expect to see little difference.

Senate Democrats were set to vote on a $10 billion bailout for public schools, claiming all along the measure was “paid for with spending cuts.”  When the Congressional Budget Office revealed it was going to add $5 billion to the deficit, the vote was delayed until Wednesday.

The National Education Association, the biggest beneficiary of the legislation, perpetuated the lie on its website.  The NEA stands to gain about $36 million in dues dollars.

While news reports indicate it could come up again Wednesday, here’s to hoping it won’t see the light of day again.

Americans can ill afford to continue adding to the deficit for a jobs plan that does little for the future and continues funding the status quo.  Public education has become little more than a public works project, throwing good money after bad.

Democrats in Washington are throwing a bone to the teachers unions – a very expensive bone at that – and it should continue to be opposed by sensible Senators from both parties.

Senate Democrats, though, acknowledge this is a bump in the road.  And they’ll continue putting us further in debt however they see fit.  From The Morning Call:

If the Senate can’t get it passed, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey said the chamber would try again until it does.

“It’s likely we’ll have to keep going back to the drawing board and going back to a different way to pass it,” Casey said. Republicans have held it up over concerns about federal spending amid high deficits.

But even if the Senate does get it passed before adjourning for its August recess, the House, which has already left, still needs to take up the bill when it returns in mid-September.

The school year, of course, starts prior to when the House could possibly vote on this, so school personnel decisions would have already been finalized.  So this is little more than a gift to the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers – financed with money from our children.

Taxpayers should continue fighting against this type of reckless spending with everything we’ve got and force government to live within its means, just as American families have to.