Important USSC Decision

June 15th, 2007 | by Craig |

This US Supreme Court decision is quite critical to the future of education reform in the US. It is the first step in chipping away at the entrenched education establishment. This case was spearheaded by a free market think tank in Washington State called the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. This is really about The Freedom Not to Pay for Other Peoples Politics.

  1. 12 Responses to “Important USSC Decision”

  2. By colby natale on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply

    Why does everyone who isn’t a teacher assume teacher’s unions are some kind of evil plot to stop anyone from changing how the system works?

    Can you even begin to explain how the ruling is going to lead to education reform?

  3. By Gman on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply

    With all due respect Colby, if I have to explain it to you, you don’t understand politics.

  4. By Walter Greenspan on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply

    Take away the money used for political purposes and the union’s powerto control is reduced.

  5. By Walter Greenspan on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply

    See: http://tinyurl.com/226wlj

  6. By Mike on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply

    The amazing thing is that this had to go to SCOTUS itself. So, how long before a Constitutional genius uses this case and the subsequent UNANIMOUS opinion to fight for the right of those who don’t avail themselves of the public education system to send their tax $$ to the private school of their choice? Better late than never.

  7. By colby natale on Jun 18, 2007 | Reply

    This exact sentiment (that anyone who disagrees is ignorant or ill-informed) is exactly what is wrong with thins today. Although I may not agree with you, I certainly have an understanding of how politics works. What you mean to say is that if you have to explain it to me, then I don’t understand your view of politics; which is exactly why I asked in the first place.

    What is the point of blogging if you are unwilling to offer an explanation of your posts?

    I imagine that if you took the time to respond to my original question, you would say something about special interests and how teachers unions are too powerful. Probably, you would explain that this ruling levels the playing field with unions since they have to get permission to spend money,etc. I can understand those points; I just happen to disagree that such a thing counts as “education reform”. It is no better than saying that blowing up the capital building would be “political reform”; changing something haphazardly doesn’t qualify as reforming it.

    Now, we can debate whether or not the ruling was haphazard or just, and that is what I would like to do. But please don’t use the parental “if I have to explain it to you…” crap on me. Either you will defend your ideas in an open forum or you won’t (or can’t).

  8. By Gman on Jun 18, 2007 | Reply

    Colby, I suppose I’m bucking my usual protocol to respond to everything with a long explanation. I didn’t say what I say flippantly; I meant it. I believe that this decision is important because, just as Walter said, it takes away the political advantage teacher unions have with compulsory dues and the ability to use dues money for political purposes.

    Colby, could you imagine what would happen if corporations forced their employees to contribute to the political goals of the management? That would be akin to what is going on with teacher unions.

    So, if you level the playing field when it comes to teacher union power, then you are on the road to reform.

  9. By Colby Natale on Jun 18, 2007 | Reply

    First off, unions have a mechanism by which to change what they spend on; corporations wouldn’t. If you don’t like what a corporation would be using your money on (in your example) they could fire you, unions cannot.

    Secondly, you don’t have to join the union - when I worked as a teacher in California, you could choose to opt out of the union and have your fee go towards charity instead - so people have choices.

    Third, even if what you said is true, no one is making these people work at a given location or for a given district. I mean, that is the response I get from Conservatives all the time on business; “Don’t like it, don’t shop there”. Well, I can use that logic to say “Don’t like it, don’t work there”. Why are unions a business device that all of a sudden you want to regulate with law/legislation whereas normally yourself and Craig would decry such a notion?

    Add to all of this that union members can influence what the money is spent on, they are representative units, not micro-tyrannys.

    And you say leveling the playing field. Level it with regards to whom? The average citizen has many vehicles by which his money can go into politics; there are countless non-profits accepting money to run political ads. So it isn’t like anti-union people don’t have their own, equal, vehicles by which they can get involved.

    Cause it just looks like you don’t like public education (at least in its current form), you blame unions, and are just happy to see them weakened, regardless of the logic behind it.

  10. By W. Mark Felt on Jun 18, 2007 | Reply

    Thanks for your explanation, Colby.

    If I understand you correctly, you’re currently a teacher within the Montana Public School System? If so, does that mean you’ve been polled by the MEA/MFT as to how you want your dues spent? Also, did you get a chance to vote for Eric Feavre, or nominate someone else? (I don’t want to know HOW you voted, that’s your business - just that you were given the opportunity to vote for someone else).

    Of course this all assumes that you opted to join the union (do they allow it as an option in MT, or is it mandatory?) I know, lots of questions - but thanks in advance - I appreciate your candor in this thread.

  11. By Colby Natale on Jun 18, 2007 | Reply

    Actually, I graduated from UM with a teacher degree, but left to go work in California due to the low starting salary (and unavailability of jobs in regions I would want to live in) in the state. After three years away, my wife and I returned to be near family again. I no longer work in the education field; partly due to pay but primarily due to deciding it wasn’t for me.

    That being said, my specific experience with unions was all in California, so I admit ignorance when it comes to the specifics in Montana itself. To the best of my knowledge, enrollment is optional; same as it was in California, where my dues didn’t have to go to the union if I didn’t want them to.

    As a matter of clarification, I didn’t mean to suggest the the unions constantly poll and ask how to spend the dues; I was saying that there are choices for members and would-be-members, both through optional membership and especially through elections and other union procedure, as to how they direct their funds.

  12. By W. Mark Felt on Jun 18, 2007 | Reply

    Thanks! I appreciate the insight - wonder if there are any Montana educators within the public school system that could lend their thoughts to this.

  13. By Walter Greenspan on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    Interesting insider view of the financial operations of an urban school district in today’s (Friday, June 22) Wall Street Journal weekly TASTE COMMENTARY section, “How long can someone with an M.B.A. last in an education bureaucracy?”:

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010241

Post a Comment