If you’ve paid any attention to the news in recent days, you’ve probably seen a clip of National Education Association (NEA) President Becky Pringle delivering what some are calling an “unhinged” speech.
“Our students are depending on us to win ALL THE THINGS,” Pringle repeatedly yells to the assembled NEA delegates, urging them to work for this in order “to preserve our democracy.”
If you’re like me, you probably come away from that clip wondering what “ALL THE THINGS” are that Pringle wants the teachers’ union to win. Thankfully, the 2023-2024 policy statements of the NEA might shed a bit of light on that phrase. Here are just a handful of examples:
For starters, the NEA is very specific about the “private sector involvement” it allows within the public education system, specifying that “private school tuition voucher programs” are not acceptable to its principles. The teachers’ union also declares that it “supports public charter schools” … but only those “that are authorized and held accountable by public school districts.” It also promises to “utilize the Framework for Racial Justice in Education to achieve our vision for safe, just, and equitable schools.”
But these principles are those pursued by the national union. What about those pursued by the union closer to home—Education Minnesota, an affiliate of both the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the NEA?
Seven principles are listed in a 2020 document from Education Minnesota. Only one, “Commitment to the Learners,” deals with the union’s relationship to students. The rest of the principles deal with the organization’s commitment to its members, to the profession, to public education and the community, to the organization itself, to the labor movement, and to racial equity and social justice. One wonders whether these are the types of “things” which Pringle wants the teachers in her union to pass along to their students.
But let’s put all these aside for a moment and truly concentrate on the Education Minnesota principle relating specifically to students, breaking it down line by line:
1. “Education Minnesota believes in enhancing all areas of education for the learner as well as access to affordable life-long education.”
Whether the education offered in the public system that Education Minnesota advances is truly life-long education is something which requires another question: Does it teach students to learn for themselves? As author Dorothy Sayers said long ago, “whatever instruction fails to do this is effort spent in vain.”
Furthermore, however, is the question of whether education is affordable. Sure, public education is “free” to students—in fact, that’s ALL many families can afford. But what of the real cost?
The state of Minnesota alone allotted $20.2 billion for education in the 2022-2023 biennium budget, nearly 40% of the general fund and the largest single segment. That does not include property taxes or other revenue for school districts.
School districts around Minnesota are spending $20,000 or more per student per year. For example, White Bear Lake Area Schools spends roughly $33,000 per student. For that cost, the taxpayers get a school district in which only 43% of 10th-grade students are proficient in reading and a mere 34% of 11th-grade students are proficient in math.
When confronted with the failures of the system, the teachers’ unions’ standard response is, “We don’t have enough money.”
There is plenty of money going to education. What we have is a resource allocation problem. The resources are allocated according to the teachers’ unions’ wants rather than the needs of the students. Remember NEA President Becky Pringle’s own words: “…win ALL THE THINGS!!!!”
If Education Minnesota truly wants to make education affordable, or at least accountable to the taxpayers, then it should be open to Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). With ESAs, education funds follow the child to the school that best fits his or her needs—rather than simply sending education dollars down the hole of the broken education system.
With ESAs, there will be real accountability. If a school is failing to educate their students, parents have the freedom and resources to find a better school. Failing schools will find that they must improve or risk losing funding.
2. “Education Minnesota is committed to promoting the successful development of each learner.”
Successful development? The data shows otherwise.
According to the Minnesota Department of Education, 2023 saw only 46% of Minnesota students attain proficiency in math, while only 50% attained it in reading. It wasn’t much better for those about to leave the system and head to college, for only 52% of Minnesota 10th-graders achieved reading proficiency in 2023, while only 36% of 11th-graders achieved it in math.
3. “Learning environments should be safe, welcoming, comfortable, and technologically current for all levels of learners.”
Let’s just take that first word, “safe.” The last year has repeatedly delivered reports of large fights breaking out in Minnesota’s public schools, some even causing the closure of school doors for a day or two while things were worked out.
Consider, too, the fight over School Resource Officers (SROs) in schools. Many parents and students were concerned by the lack of a police presence in their schools at the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year. What does the need for police in schools tell us about how safe our schools actually are?
Furthermore, one of the growing complaints of students, parents, and even teachers is classroom disruptions. In many schools, the lack of order and safety is detrimentally affecting student learning. After all, it’s hard to learn when some schools will pull all the students out of a classroom because one child is creating a disturbance.
4. “Within these environments, Education Minnesota is committed to promoting practices and policies that recognize different learners’ needs and provide opportunities for family involvement.”
That’s interesting, because last I checked, the teachers’ unions are adamantly opposed to alternative education options. Instead, they want students to remain in public schools at all costs—even though those same public schools don’t always meet the learning needs of students, as mentioned above.
What about the idea that parents might have a better idea than the education system of what their child needs, using opportunities like Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) to get him or her into a different learning opportunity? “Au contraire!” teachers’ unions protest. “Only the expert educators can make those types of decisions!”
Why does all this matter? Because at the end of the day, the teachers’ unions are the ones who are standing in the way of a quality education for our children.
2024 polling by EdChoice reveals that both Minnesota parents and the public overwhelmingly support school choice with Education Savings Accounts (ESAs).
Oh, sure, they tell us that they’re all working for students. But that certainly didn’t seem to be the case when they insisted on keeping schools closed for months on end because of COVID, causing our children to lose precious learning time while goofing off during Zoom school. Nor does it seem to be the case when teachers’ unions go on strike, shutting down schools for days on end. And given that six of the seven stated principles of Education Minnesota focus on areas other than students doesn’t lend much support to their alleged care for students either.
No, the hard cold truth is that teachers’ unions aren’t in it for the students. They’re in it for themselves. And the sooner we realize that, the sooner we’re likely to get better education for our children.
—
