Morning Shots

A new and better day for the free speech rights of teachers may be just over the horizon. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases directly affecting teachers: Davenport v. Washington Education Association and Washington v. Washington Education Association.

In agreeing to hear arguments for these cases, the Supreme Court is recognizing the potential significance of state “paycheck protection” laws in upholding the individual rights of more than 17 million union members nationwide. More than two million public school teachers could be affected by the ruling, which is expected to be heard in January.

In 1992, the voters of Washington passed a referendum that required the teacher unions to get their members’ “opt-in” permission before spending money for political purposes. The law was created because teachers there must, at a minimum, pay “agency fees” to their unions for the “privilege” of representation in collective bargaining.  However, those teachers had no assurance or itemization as to how their mandatory dues were spent. In fact, after the new law went into effect, the union was fined over half a million dollars for repeatedly violating the trust of both its members and non-members.  At the heart of the law and this Supreme Court case is a union’s accountability in spending money seized from teachers’ paychecks.

Unfortunately, Washington courts felt that asking unions to keep track of the money coming in and going out of union coffers and into the pockets of politicians was unconstitutionally “burdensome” on unions.  Apparently the free speech rights of unions superseded the individual rights of teachers who were forced to pay for the union’s activities or face losing their jobs. The dissenting opinion written by one of the justices of the

Read More …

As a parent of five children, I have a vested interest in South Carolina public education, but it’s no secret that South Carolina is notorious for having some of the worst schools in the nation and the highest high school drop out rate. As I recently posted over at my blog Parentalcation, even our “elite” children are far behind the national average in SAT scores. However, nothing compares to the sheer failure in our notorious rural schools that run along I-95, aptly called the corridor of shame.

For example, on Allendale-Fairfax Middle School’s 2005 school report card it shows that only 12% of students scored above basic in the math section of the Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT). In English language arts it was even worse: only 9% scored proficient and not a single child scored advanced.  No amount of poverty could explain such dismal scores.  There is no doubt that the current system is broken beyond repair.

Even Cindy Scoppe, a public school defender and an opponent of vouchers, acknowledges that fixing the current system is next to impossible. She writes:

But the pieces begin to fall into place when you understand that Mr. Cotty sees local school boards and administrations as the main stumbling block in some of our poorest schools. Like a growing number of politicians and policy experts across the political spectrum, he is convinced that some local officials are simply incapable of improving those schools.

In a rational world, that wouldn’t be a problem: The state, which has the primary responsibility for educating the children of South Carolina, would provide some extra training or send in experts to help them do a better job; if that didn’t work, the local officials would

Read More …

A recent report on preschool education in developed countries found that Australia has some catching up to do. According to the report, Starting Strong II, Australia spends much less on pre-school education and has lower participation rates than almost all other countries in the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).

These findings are not new. International comparisons have been showing this for a long time. What is new is that preschool is starting to be taken seriously in Australia. But it is one thing to say that preschool is beneficial for many children, and another to make it compulsory for all children.

This is just what many people, including high-profile politicians and academics, would like to do. The federal education minister, Julie Bishop, has proposed a compulsory year of pre-school and the idea has been vigorously supported by child development expert and former Australian of the Year Fiona Stanley. Others have suggested that all children should attend two years at preschool.

There are no good arguments against preschools or against more spending on preschools. Preschool is a wonderful thing and should be available to all children.

There are, however, good arguments against making preschool compulsory. These arguments are not to do with the indoctrination of toddlers by the state. Likewise, concerns about the imposition of formal academic curriculum on very young children are groundless. All preschools have a play-based curriculum that emphasizes social skills and self-discipline.

The arguments against compulsory preschool come from a child and family welfare perspective. What is right for one child will not necessarily be right for another. In New South Wales, children can start school at 4 ½ years old, and many do. A compulsory year of preschool would have these children separated from their parents at 3 ½. For some children

Read More …