Posts

AFT’s Left Flank Infuriated over Clinton Endorsement

Union leftists are shocked! shocked! that the teacher union elite did not confer with them before anointing Hillary Clinton as Democratic presidential pick.

The education and mainstream media were whooping it up last week after a cadre of teacher union members laid into the American Federation of Teachers for its endorsement of Hillary Clinton as Democratic nominee for president. The headlines screamed:

The AFT’s Endorsement of Hillary Clinton Is an Insult to Union Democracy

Clinton Endorsement, Wrong For Our Union

Teachers Say No Freaking Way to AFT Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

(Mike Antonucci has a bunch more here.)

Seems that the union members are apoplectic for a couple of reasons. First, they said the announcement came too early. The angry teachers pointed to a general agreement among AFL-CIO labor leaders that none of its unions would make an endorsement before July 30th, after all candidates were properly vetted on a variety of issues. And perhaps more importantly, the aggrieved felt slighted because they were not consulted before the Clinton coronation. AFT president Randi Weingarten dismissed the dissidents’ anger by explaining that the early endorsement would enable AFT “to help Hillary shape a powerful platform and focus the conversation on the issues that matter to our members….” Weingarten also declared that AFT conducted a phone survey that contacted more than a million members, soliciting their input.

But hardcore unionistas weren’t buying anything Weingarten said. As EAG’s Kyle Olson reports, a tweet sent out by a teacher claimed the “poll that endorsed Clinton surveyed 683 of the 1.6 mil members. 0.04%.” Another tweet asserted that AFT “used telephone town halls and a web-based survey, I didn’t even know existed.” One teacher simply called the endorsement “BS.” Also, over 4,500 teachers have signed a Change.org petition demanding that AFT withdraw its endorsement.

At the core of the teachers’ anger was that they saw the endorsement as a bargain between two political cronies. Weingarten and Clinton are longtime buds, their relationship beginning early in the millennium when Clinton was a New York senator and Weingarten ran New York City’s teachers union. Also, Weingarten sits on the board of Priorities USA Action, a pro-Clinton super PAC. There are rumors that if Hillary makes it to the White House, Randi would become Secretary of Education. (Make up your own fox/henhouse type joke here.)

Many of the dissenting teachers also see Clinton as a one percenter, while viewing socialist Bernie Sanders as much more “pro-union.” (Maybe one day these unhappy union members will wake up to the fact that Randi with her half-a-million plus income is a one percenter too. Maybe.)

But the real story here is that union lefties have awakened to something those of us on the right have known for years. Union leaders don’t give a rat’s derriere about the political leanings and desires of their members. Mike Antonucci reports that an internal National Education Association survey shows that its members “are slightly more conservative (50%) than liberal (43%) in political philosophy.” Former NEA president Reg Weaver has said publicly that his union breaks down as one-third Democrat, one-third Republican and one-third “Other.” And at a panel in which I was a participant in 2013, California Teachers Association president Dean Vogel said that his union membership is 65 percent Democrat and 35 percent Republican.

With all those right-of-center union members, you’d think that the unions would at least spend some money on candidates and causes that would make them happy. But as I have written about ad nauseum, they don’t. For example, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2012, AFT spent $2,110,529 on Democratic candidates for office and just $7,046 on Republicans.

The NEA is not much better. From 1989-2014, the union sent only 4 percent of its donations to Republicans, and rest assured that the few bucks they tossed at the right never wound up anywhere near any Tea Party types. Additionally, over the years NEA has lavished gifts on such leftist stalwarts as MALDEF, Planned Parenthood, People for the American Way, Media Matters, ACORN, Al Sharpton’s National Action Network and the Center for American Progress.

Now that many left-leaning teachers are having a needed “Aha!” moment, perhaps they will realize the only way to make their union truly democratic is by not making teachers pay to play. Without forced dues, the union would have to be more solicitous of its members. As things stand now, unions don’t have to care what their members think…about anything. So I welcome the newly baptized to the world that those of us right-of-center folks have inhabited for years. Now a little love for the Friedrichs Ten, maybe?

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

Sweatshops, Walmart, TFA, Bart Simpson and Hams for Hanukkah

Teachers unions are busier than ever pointing fingers, forming loopy alliances and making embarrassing gaffes.

A couple of weeks ago Massie Ritsch, assistant communications and outreach point man for Education Secretary Arne Duncan, left his job to take a similar position at Teach For America. And not a moment too soon!

As I wrote last week, the American Federation of Teachers has hopped into bed with the United Students Against Sweatshops. In fact, having given the group $58,650 in 2013-1014, AFT is the USAS’ biggest funder. The Harvard cell of the national group made news when it decided to target Teach For America. According to the Harvard Crimson, “The effort is part of a larger national movement started by United Students Against Sweatshops that criticizes Teach For America, a nation-wide program that recruits college graduates to teach in low-income communities for at least two years, for undermining the quality of public education.” (Emphasis added.)

Undermining public education? Funny, I thought that was the job of the teachers union.

USAS  Harvard also demands that TFA sever ties with anti-union corporations such as Walmart, which funds TFA. Reason’s Nick Gillespie clearly gets the gut-busting hubris,

We’ve all heard the stories about how smart, ambitious, and clean-smelling Harvard students are, right? I mean, Harvard is like the Cadillac of college (and I mean back when Cadillac meant high standards and luxury, not whatever it might mean today), the gold standard in a world of fiat currencies. And the students come from money, with over 45 percent hailing from families pulling in $200,000 a year (and 21 percent coming from the above-$500,000 mark).

So you can rest assured that Harvard students know what they’re talking about. And these days, they’re trying to get the university to pull out of Teach For America if it doesn’t start only placing its participants in unionized public schools. (Emphasis added.)

AEI’s Rick Hess weighs in also,

Fashioning themselves the “United Students Against Sweatshops” (it’s okay to laugh at that), these kids have taken TFA to task for being “the man”—and for turning teaching into sweatshop-like work by allowing some selected recruits to enter the classroom without slogging through the entirety of traditional teacher prep. I’m not sure where the “sweatshop” piece really surfaces here, ed schools have a hard time making the case that their grads are better after the training, and research has suggested that TFA’ers are at least as effective as traditionally trained teachers, but whatevs… Somehow, I don’t think the United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) are all that interested in sweating these details. I’m trying to make allowance for the fact that these complaints are being offered by a bunch of 20-year-olds who don’t know anything and who’ve given every indication that they’re being funded and stage-managed by professional labor organizers who have their own agenda. But still, for reasons that escape me, they’ve been getting a fair bit of attention. (Emphasis added.)

The real problem that AFT-USAS has with TFA is that it places a great number of its teachers in charter schools, which are overwhelmingly union-free. And of course, Walmart has been a long-time punching bag for unionistas and their fellow travelers. The giant chain is not unionized, which has enabled it to keep costs down by not having to wade through the collective bargaining process. If it were up to AFT-USAS, Walmart would be unionized, the result of which would be jacked up wages leading to increased prices, which would mean fewer customers, thus forcing worker lay-offs. Now there’s a great business plan!

The teachers unions’ efforts to defame Walmart know no bounds. AFT president Randi Weingarten thought she was being oh-so-clever when she posted “Really Walmart? Ham for Hanukah” (sic) on Facebook.

Randi ham As EAG’s Kyle Olson points out, this photo is seven years old and was not even taken at Walmart – it was Balducci’s, a gourmet retailer in New York City. (And with all Weingarten’s self-righteous indignation, you’d think she would at least know how to spell Hanukkah!)

Interestingly, after being excoriated for this silly attempt to embarrass Walmart, it took her a week to remove the post. Perhaps though we can cut poor Randi some slack because she is sooooo busy!! In recent months, she has immersed herself in the Middle East (pushing Israel to adopt a “two-state solution”), developed a plan to contain Ebola and traveled to the Ukraine to “promote democratic values.” (Memo to Randi: Maybe consider spending less time play-acting as Secretary of State and tackle the New York City charter school that your union is systematically running into the ground.)

Weingarten has probably been too busy to see a recent episode of The Simpsons, which absolutely skewered the teachers unions.

Jack Lassen, voiced menacingly by Willem Dafoe, was transferred to Bart’s school during what Superintendent Gary Chalmers referred to as the “Dance of the Lemons,” in which school officials practice what little control they have over teacher unions by allowing principals to select their worst teacher to send to another school in the district.

“The union is happy, the parents are placated and only the children suffer,” Chalmers explained.

Lassen — among the group Chalmers refers to as “sociopathic child-haters who are only teachers because they got tenure after two short years” — doesn’t suffer Bart’s foolishness, responding to the mischievous one’s skeleton-in-the-closet prank by buzzing the top of his head with clippers.

When you’ve lost Bart Simpson, you just may have lost the country, as evidenced by the unions’ dismal return on the millions they spent in the November elections.

But back to USAS. Gillespie ended his Reason post with the following:

The Harvard prodigies and the organizers at USAS are about the last people standing who think that unionizing teachers is the last, best hope of improving American education, especially for students from lower-income, higher-risk-for-failure backgrounds. Good luck to them as their reactionary attitudes leave them further and further in the rear-view window as the rest of the country moves into a future of increased options for all, regardless of family income and ability to pay.

All I can add to that, Nick, is a hearty “Amen!!”

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

Michigan Teachers and Their Union Support Child Rapist

“Although fully aware that Neal did something illegal, I am very proud to have him as my friend.”

“… his dedication and leadership qualities gained him the respect of his administrators, staff, students and community.”

The above quotes are from letters that were written by teachers to a judge last June on behalf of a former colleague. The object of the teachers’ tributes, Neal Erickson, a middle school math teacher in West Branch, Michigan, was convicted of repeatedly raping one of his male students between 2006 and 2009, starting when the boy was 13. The teacher was so brazen about his acts that he posted videos and pictures of himself and the boy engaged in oral sex and worse on child porn websites. Much to the letter writers’ dismay, the rapist received a 15-30 year prison sentence in July.

But the story didn’t end there. Local school officials held a special board meeting on July 29th where parents expressed outrage at the sympathetic teachers. As EAG writer Victor Skinner wrote at the time,

… numerous people from the community approached the podium to urge the school board to fire seven teachers who wrote the court in support of Erickson.

They also called for the resignation of board member Michael Eagan, who sat with teachers and the Erickson family during the former teacher’s sentencing last month, the Ogemaw County Herald reports.

Many parents who spoke at the meeting threatened to remove their children from the district if teachers who supported Erickson are not fired, which could result in significant loss of per-pupil state funding.

The ongoing sexual assault was bad enough for the victim’s parents, but it was compounded by the teachers disgusting display of sympathy for a convicted rapist. Judge Michael Bumgartner, who sentenced Erickson, agreed saying that he was “appalled and ashamed” at the support for Erickson and told him, “What you did was a jab in the eye with a sharp stick to every parent who trusts a teacher.” The heartbroken father said not only was his son’s innocence taken from him, but the boy became hostile and withdrawn in his teens; sadly the parents blame themselves for his emotional problems. To get a true feeling of what their family has gone through, I urge you to watch this brief video.

The Janczewskis then asked that those teachers who supported Erickson be fired as well as urging Michael Eagen to resign his school board post. However, not everyone supported their plea.

Police believe someone set the Janczewskis’ garage on fire July 20, and nearly set their home ablaze.

On the side of his house the perpetrator spray-painted “YWP-ITY,” presumably a crude acronym for “You will pay, I told you.” State police are offering a $5,000 reward for information leading to an arrest in the case.

“We don’t deserve this,” John Janczewski told the Herald. “We’re not a bad family. We’ve done nothing but stand up for our son, the victim. They could have killed my whole family. Whoever’s done this has no remorse. They have no soul.”

And talking about no soul….

You may be wondering where the teachers union has been throughout all this. Well not surprisingly, they are supporting the rapist. According to Skinner,

On March 26, 2013 WB-RC officials offered a $10,000 buyout for any qualifying teacher who left the school district that year, an incentive superintendent Dan Cwayna said the district had used in the past to encourage needed staff reductions.

While it’s not clear when Erickson’s employment was terminated, the union’s action suggests he was still on the payroll when the buyout was offered and accepted it.

The school district declined to pay him the money, prompting the union’s action.

“You had to qualify for the buyout, depending on your years in the district,” Cwayna said. “We’ve done it in the past. It was a little different this last year in that we offered the buyout in two $5,000 payments.

“When the first payment was sent out … and the union discovered we did not make the payment to Mr. Erickson, they filed a grievance on his behalf.”

Cwayna said he was the one who decided not to authorize the special severance for the child molester, but declined to elaborate on why, though the reason seems pretty obvious.

“That was something I as superintendent, with some consultation with the president of the board,” decided, Cwayna said. “That was a decision the superintendent makes and at this point … I prefer not to get into the reasons.”

MEA UniServ Director Ron Parkinson acknowledged that the union is taking the case to arbitration on behalf of Erickson, but declined to discuss the case further.

To summarize this tragic story, here is how things stand now:

  • Erickson is doing 15 to 30 for his crime.
  • The seven teachers with broken moral compasses still have their jobs.
  • About 90 or so parents have pulled their kids from the 2,000 student district.
  • The Michigan Education Association, clueless as to when to pick and choose its battles, is still demanding that the convicted rapist be paid his $10,000 “buyout.”
  • National union leaders Randi Weingarten and Dennis Van Roekel, who of late have been flitting around the country weighing in on all matters educational in an effort to reinvigorate their rank-and-file, have been mum on the Michigan tragedy.
  • The Janczewski’s son is now 21 and graduating with honors from Western Michigan University. He is due home for Christmas and the family is hoping to heal the wounds which have devastated them for the last seven years.

As the old saying goes, “He who becomes compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the compassionate.” During this holiday season, it’s the Janczewskis who merit our prayers and support. The rapist, the teachers who stand by him and the union that is trying to finagle funds for him deserve the scorn of good people everywhere.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.

Teachers Unions and School Boards Must Disconnect

Teachers unions’ goals are in direct conflict with those of school boards.

Two powerful entities in public education have very different agendas. The teachers unions’ goal is to derive every benefit possible and to protect every last one of its dues paying members no matter how incompetent they are. School boards are governing bodies that are mandated to be responsive to children and to the values, beliefs and priorities of its community. Together, in most states, the two bodies must join to hammer out a “collective bargaining” agreement that regulates working conditions. (A future post will go into detail about collective bargaining issues.) As former Secretary of Education Rod Paige says, “Organizations can’t serve two gods … They serve one. And in the case of teachers’ unions, it is the interests of their members.” Period.

Stanford professor and education reformer Terry Moe describes the conflict:

School-board elections are supposed to be the democratic means by which ordinary citizens govern their own schools. The board is supposed to represent “the people.” But in many districts it really doesn’t. For with unions so powerful, employee interests are given far more weight in personnel and policy decisions than warranted, and school boards are partially captured by their own employees. Democracy threatens to be little more than a charade, serving less as a mechanism of popular control than as a means by which employees promote their own special interests.

Moe then gets into the details.

The most direct evidence comes from a study of 245 California school district elections and the 1,228 candidates who competed in them during the years 1998–2001. A multivariate statistical analysis shows that, for candidates who are not incumbents, teacher union support increases the probability of winning substantially. Indeed, it is roughly equal to, and may well exceed, the impact of incumbency itself.

The comparison with incumbency is instructive. These are low-information, low-interest elections, and because incumbents tend to be well-known, effective campaigners, and relatively well funded, there is every reason to expect the power of incumbency to be considerable. My statistical estimates show that it is. That the estimates for union impact are comparable, then, says a lot about the lofty level at which the unions are playing the political game. They are heavy hitters.

Their total influence, in fact, appears to be even greater over the long haul. When the unions succeed in getting nonincumbents elected to school boards, these people become incumbents the next time around. Then their probability of victory is boosted not just by their union support, but also by the power of incumbency. When the two factors are combined, as they are when union winners run for reelection, the candidates are virtually unbeatable. (Emphasis added.)

Obviously this is a treacherous scenario. Yet Moe does offer a few bright spots:

Yes, they are powerful, but they don’t always dominate, and they can’t have everything they want. In particular:

They sometimes face opposition from other organized groups, especially in large urban districts. When this happens, business groups are the most likely to represent effective opposition.

Because incumbents have their own bases of power, they can be more difficult for the unions to defeat than other candidates. As a result, the unions sometimes support incumbents who are not as pro-union as the unions would like in order not to alienate an eventual winner.

Because voting patterns are shaped by the political culture of a district, unions in conservative districts sometimes find themselves supporting candidates who are less pro-union than they would like in order not to lose.

After election to the school board, the experience of being on the board—and part of “management”—seems to make members somewhat less pro-union over time; as a result, the unions cannot count on gaining complete control of school boards even when they are continually successful in elections.

So while the unions have way too much sway over our children’s education, the scenario is not all bleak. And there are a few other areas of light.

One solution to the unions’ natural financial advantage and ready teacher voting army is “outsider money.” This past winter New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg poured $1 million into the Los Angeles school board races, and Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst added another $250,000 (but with only partial success).

In Colorado, where there is no defined state labor law, school boards have extensive discretion whether and how to engage and bargain with a union. Most districts are non-union, but they overwhelmingly tend to be the small-to-medium-sized variety. (H/T Ben DeGrow) But last September, in Douglas County, the third largest district in the state, the school board

… voted to officially end negotiations with the teachers union over their collective-bargaining agreement with the district. The board also voted to end the collection of union dues and to stop paying union leaders with district money.

The Dougco school board action predictably ruffled many a union feather. Douglas County Federation of Teachers president Brenda Smith grumbled that the policies caused teachers to feel “not valued, trusted or engaged,” and predicted that there would be a teacher “exodus” from the district. And in May, a group of discontented teachers announced they were indeed planning to leave the district because of the evisceration of the union.

But as EAG’s Ben Velderman reports, that didn’t happen.

Not only are teachers not fleeing the district in droves, but Douglas County schools’ teacher turnover rate is smaller this year (11.7 percent) than it was last year (13.2 percent), reports TheColoradoObserver.com.

The district’s current attrition rate “is normal for large districts in (Colorado),” the news site notes. Looks like the union-led revolution will have to wait …

… until November when the board members who voted to kiss off the union are up for reelection. Hence, the jury is still out in Douglas County.

In another bold move, Rod Reynolds, an Everett, Washington man, is running for school board and not playing nice with the local teachers union. Not only did Reynolds turn down the union leaders’ offer, but the

self-described watchdog and whistleblower responded to the invitation with a lengthy letter explaining why teacher unions shouldn’t get involved in school board races at all.

“Quite frankly, I don’t think your union should issue an endorsement of any school board candidate, and I don’t think any board candidate should accept one,” Reynolds writes in the June 19 letter to the union.

“The school district and its employees’ unions are natural adversaries. …You represent the teachers of the district; school directors represent (theoretically) the taxpayers-citizens who elect them. I don’t see how a school board candidate’s acceptance of a union endorsement could be anything but a conflict of interest.” (Emphasis added.)

Clearly, Reynolds gets it. It is a major conflict of interest.

Unfortunately, Los Angeles has yet to evolve. The embarrassing subhead in a recent LA Times story read: 

An L.A. school board member tells UTLA activists that the union must fight public perceptions that it protects bad teachers

These words were written by newly-elected, union-backed, “reform-minded” candidate Monica Ratliff. Please note she doesn’t say she wants the union to stop protecting bad teachers; she just wants to change the perception. In other words, we don’t have a bad teacher problem, just a PR problem.

Pathetic.

Until the public realizes that the union/school board nexus is real and very unfair to children and their families, the inequities and the failures it causes will continue. Statehouses all over the country should be thronged by an army of concerned parents and citizens demanding more bang for their buck, better education for their children and a brighter future for the country.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.

“I’m Randi Weingarten and Now, the Fake News.”

Teachers union makes news with meaningless words and a misleading poll.

Norm MacDonald is famous for opening the comedic news segment on Saturday Night Live by introducing himself and telling the audience that it’s time for the “fake news.” I thought of this when, at the recent American Federation of Teachers convention, President Randi Weingarten essentially said that bad teachers should find new jobs. Her words were dutifully reported by a compliant press, but it didn’t take much to see that the comment was devoid of any conviction whatsoever.

Responding to Weingarten’s comment that “…if someone can’t teach after they’ve been prepared and supported, they shouldn’t be in our profession,” EAG’s Ben Velderman pointed out,

Notice the huge caveat in Weingarten’s comment: “after they’ve been prepared and supported.”

Weingarten is actually saying that incompetent and ineffective teachers should have lots of time and assistance to improve their classroom performance.

In fact, “lots of time” would be an eternity or so, with the teacher in question going through a battery of master teachers, on-site administrators, coaches, peer assistance review teams, and then various administrative panels, lawyers, endless appeals, all with a tree-killer paper trail. Hence, there is nothing but empty rhetoric here.

Mike Antonucci gives Weingarten’s comment an historical perspective, enumerating high- sounding teacher union leader’s past proclamations which did nothing to change the moribund status quo. He links Weingarten’s merit pay speech in 2008 in which she says she is “willing to discuss new approaches to issues like teacher tenure and merit pay.” Yet when the rubber hit the road in 2010, Weingarten fought DC Chancellor Michelle Rhee tooth and nail on these very issues. It was as if the union boss had forgotten that she made any noise about tenure and merit pay.

Antonucci goes back to 1997 when National Education Association president Bob Chase made a feel-good speech in which he acknowledged the existence of the “vast majority of Americans who support public education, but are clearly dissatisfied. They want higher quality public schools, and they want them now.”

Since his speech a full generation of children has passed through the entire pre-K to 12 public school system. What changes we have seen during that time have come with the teachers’ unions trailing behind, yelling “stop!” I have seen the future, and it is more of the same.

Just as fraudulent as Weingarten’s tough talk on bad teachers is a new AFT “poll,” the results of which were reported on solemnly by union cheerleaders like The Washington Post’s Valerie Strauss. This push poll’s intentionally skewed results were used by Weingarten and the true believers in the press to hammer home the idea that parents are against education reform.

But the Cato Institute’s Jason Bedrick wasn’t buying it, and wrote that the “Teachers Union Poll Is Not Credible.” One example of how the AFT phrased their questions:

With which approach for improving education do you agree more?

APPROACH A) We should focus on ensuring that every child has access to a good public school in their community. We need to make the investments needed to ensure all schools provide safe conditions, an enriching curriculum, support for students’ social and emotional development, and effective teachers.

APPROACH B) We should open more public charter schools and provide more vouchers that allow parents to send their children to private schools at public expense. Children will receive the best education if we give families the financial freedom to attend schools that meet their needs.

It’s no surprise that 77 percent agreed with the first approach and only 20 percent agreed with the second. Either “invest” in “good” public schools in your “community” and receive all sort of wonderful goodies (“enriching curriculum!” “effective teachers!”) or forgo all that so that some parents can send their kids to private school “at public expense.” Aside from the fact that this is a false choice (competition can actually improve public school performance and school choice programs can save money), the wording is blatantly designed to push respondents toward Approach A.

Bedrick then writes about a 2012 Harvard poll that was worded fairly. Its findings:

  • 54% of parents favor giving all families a “wider choice” to “enroll their children in private schools instead, with government helping to pay the tuition” compared with 21% opposed.
  • 46% of parents favor giving low-income families a “wider choice” to “enroll their children in private schools instead, with government helping to pay the tuition” compared with 21% opposed.
  • When not given a neutral option, 50% of parents favor giving low-income families a “wider choice” to “enroll their children in private schools instead, with government helping to pay the tuition” compared with 50% opposed.
  • When the question omits the words “a wider choice” and only asks about using “government funds to pay the tuition of low-income students who choose to attend private schools,” 44% of parents are in favor with 32% opposed.

Education Week’s Stephen Sawchuk also had problems with the AFT poll, reminding us to take it “with a grain of salt and examine the questions’ phraseology carefully.” (I would suggest adding an ample amount of Maalox to the salt.)

Take, for instance, a bunch of paired statements asking parents to select the one they most agree with. Unsurprisingly, they tend to favor the idea that it’s better to “treat teachers like professionals” than to “regularly remove poorly performing teachers.”

…  A few results appear contradictory. Nearly half surveyed had a negative impression of using test scores in teacher evaluation, but 68 percent approved of paying teachers more if their students show gains in academic achievement.

In another refutation of the biased AFT poll, The Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke writes that “Unions Can’t Ignore Support for Choice in Education.”

A PDK/Gallup poll released last summer found that, when asked nearly the same question—whether they supported allowing students to choose private schools at public expense—44 percent of Americans said yes. Gallup has asked respondents the same question for the past decade and found that support for school choice has jumped 10 percentage points in just the last year alone.

Something that may be of interest to Ms. Weingarten is the result of a Rasmussen poll in which we learn that “only 26% of Likely U.S. Voters rate the performance of public schools in America today as good or excellent.  Thirty-four percent (34%) rate public education as poor.” Unlike the AFT poll, Rasmussen used straightforward language:

Overall, how would you rate the performance of public schools in America today?

No deception here, unlike the AFT pedaled “fake news.” But then again, when you have nothing legitimate to sell, snake oil will do the trick.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.